9.2.2 Sit C Clarification

[The R]

So why does this caseplay go into all the detail of fast breaks and make layups?

What are we to do if they simply pass the ball in and set up their offense? 5 second violation?

I looked over 7-4-3 and 7-5-7 but neither seemed to help.
NFHS rules.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by The R

So why does this caseplay go into all the detail of fast breaks and make layups?

What are we to do if they simply pass the ball in and set up their offense? 5 second violation?

I looked over 7-4-3 and 7-5-7 but neither seemed to help.
NFHS rules.

If there's what the team intends to be a throw-in pass, but the inbounder is not OOB, then it's an immediate violation.

The point is that this is more likely to happen when they are trying to hurry -- as on a fast-break.

[tref]

This caseplay deals with the throw-in violation... doesnt matter if the pass was an outlet to the f/c or if it was 2 foot pass to the block. What are you looking for in particular?

[letemplay]

Would it be written that way to show a difference in a situation where B1 inbounds a very short pass to B2, who realizes that B1 never got oob and tries to get him to retreat and do it again. If the ball was never taken oob, I have seen officials let them "get it right". But in the case of immediately advancing the ball: violation.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by letemplay

Would it be written that way to show a difference in a situation where B1 inbounds a very short pass to B2, who realizes that B1 never got oob and tries to get him to retreat and do it again. If the ball was never taken oob, I have seen officials let them "get it right". But in the case of immediately advancing the ball: violation.

The official needs to judge whether the first "pass" was an attempt to inbound the ball (violation, no matter that the second player realizes the problem), or merely letting the other player inbound the ball.

I agree that in the play you describe, the benefit of the doubt can go to the latter (i.e., legal play).

[Adam]

The purpose of the case is two-fold.

1. To show it's an immediate violation if they fail to get out of bounds and start advancing the play.
2. To ensure officials know they can cancel the score if their whistle is a bit slow.

[The R]

Originally Posted by tref

This caseplay deals with the throw-in violation... doesnt matter if the pass was an outlet to the f/c or if it was 2 foot pass to the block. What are you looking for in particular?

What I'm looking for is when it becomes a violation. In the case play no violation is called until the basket is made. A clarification would help this rule by saying that once it is obvious that the players think the ball has been inbounded a violation should be called.

I can only imagine the explosion you would get from the sideline if you allow them to advance the ball all the way up the floor and make a lay up before your slow whistle blows and calls a violation at the opposite baseline.

[tref]

Its a violation when the ball is thrown in from inbounds. The official in the caseplay had a very patient whistle