After all these years - a first!
 

As you know, my experience goes back to the Naismith days but I had a situation in last night's 8th grade boys game that was a first for me.

A1 had a habit of "dribbling" the ball whenever he was going to inbound. As long as he kept the ball hitting OOB, he's fine, and he would always grab the ball and inbound within five seconds. In the third quarter, he was doing it again and B1 reached across and hit the ball during one of the dribbles. As I said, I've never had this happen before.

OK you guys, is it just a DOG warning or is it a technical (the same as if B1 hit the ball while A1 was holding it)? My partner was the calling official and he called it a DOG warning. I didn't challenge it and neither did either of the coaches. Were we right or wrong?

I'm calling a DOG warning in this case.

Rule states it has to be in the player's "possession" to be a T. This is not a dribble, so when the ball is loose, I'm saying he/she doesn't have "possession."

He may not touch or dislodge the ball while in possession of the thrower. If he is bouncing the ball, he is in possession.

T

Based on what?

I'm going with DOG warning ( breaking the plane) in this case, Padgett. Mostly because of the age group involved....

Based on the dictionary definition of "in possession," since there is no rulebook

definition.

Common sense. Are you going to allow B1 to bat the ball away so there's a 5-second violation on A?

Once A has the ball, they "posess" it until it's released on an inbounds pass.

What if A1 fumbles the ball on the out of bounds side, then B1 reaches over and touches the ball?

I would still consider him to be in possession.

No, because if they bat the ball away, I'm blowing my whistle for a DOG warning, so that's not an issue.

We can argue about the semantics of "possession" in this instance, but either way, I'm not calling a T in Mark's OP.

Agree. My common sense says to use the same basic concept as player control-"holding or dribbling a live ball".

Except he's not holding or dribbling;)

Except the rules explicitly say that there is no player control on a throw in.

Rule 4:
ART. 3 . . . The throw-in and the throw-in count begin when the ball is at the disposal of a player of the team entitled to it.
ART. 4 . . . The throw-in count ends when the ball is released by the thrower so the passed ball goes directly into the court.
Would it contribute to the discussion to mention that once the ball is put at the disposal of the thrower, it's technically in his possession until he releases the ball to go into the court?
Anything the defense does to make contact with the ball while on the other side of the line between those two points of time would seem to justify a T, it seems.

T

Guys - does this help? I'm sure we would all agree that if B1 reached over the line while A1 was "dribbling" and fouled him, we would call it intentional. Should the same "reasoning" apply to the T for hitting the ball?

It doesn't mean you can't use the precedent to make a ruling on a play not specifically covered by the rules.

Here's how I have it in my mind:
reach through plane and no contact on thrower or ball-->DOG
reach through plane and hit ball, whether its in the throwers hand or not-->T and first DOG
reach through plane and hit thrower-->IF, and first DOG

Something seems amiss, fire away.

Except if A1 releases the ball on a throw-in pass; B1 then has no restrictions. 9-2-10

Maybe the definitive argument would be it's a T because it's really the same as if B1 reached across and hit a pass from A1 to A2, who were both OOB following a basket by team B. In that case, the ball isn't in A1's hands and if he's "dribbling", it's just as legal for him to do that as if he's passing OOB to A2.

This is what I was thinking.

Player control has nothing to do with this play.

The rule on this play makes no mention of player control.

Well Said. +1

For the age group however, I would use common sense and tell the player not to do that and if he were to do that in a JV or Varsity game, he would most likely get a Technical. At least if I was doing the game.

THere's a case play where A doesn't come out of a huddle after a TO. The official puts the ball on the floor. B crosses the line.

Ruling: B gets a DOG warning, and not a T, but only because A NEVER had the ball.

I read that as, if A EVER has the ball, then it's a T.

What he said ^^^^^^^^

He's a very smart guy.

Ignats' Motto
 

Watched a coupla middle school girls games tonight just for fun. At halftime one of our fine officials on the crew mentioned he was having to expend some effort to explain to the head coach why he couldn't grant her assistant's request for a timeout. I told him to tell the head coach, "Look, I'll listen to the organ grinder, but not the monkey."
Not an exact quote, but they were still laughing minutes later when administering the OOB to start the third quarter! :)
Thanx, Ignats.

No player control? So if the thrower requests a timeout because he's almost reached 5 seconds you're not going to grant it? If a player is dribbling the ball inbounds does he have player control?

The thrower had control/possession...the defender hit the ball before it was released on a pass...it is a technical foul, no warning. It's pretty cut and dry

Someone mentioned what if he lost the ball while dribbling and could the defender touch it then. If he lost the ball and it went out of the 6 ft space, I have a throw-in violation on the offense. [Does this kid have an elongated FT routine?] On the play described, it meets the definition of a T. Especially if the score was tied and it was near the end of regulation.

IMHO, correct call is a T. Whether he's holding, dribbling OB, or simply sets the ball on the floor OB is irrelevant to the defender's action. No need to overcomplicate it - by specific rule, the throw-in boundary violation restrictions on the defender don't end until the ball is released on the inbound pass.

Memories ...
 

Change Of Status just rolled over in his grave.