Finish with one? Throw-In?

[imagomer]

NCAA 3-1 says a team may finish with one player. I don't think 7-6 requires thrower-in to throw in to a teammate, only that the pass go directly onto the court. Q: In this unlikely situation where a team is finishing with one, may he/she throw in to himself/herself, assuming the player releases the throw-in legally and is in bounds when trying to receive the pass?

[firedoc]

I'm certainly not an expert on NCAA rules but my guess would ne that a player can not throw the ball to himself. The likely scenario would be that the player would have to throw the ball in to a player on the other team and then hope for a turnover of some kind.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by imagomer
NCAA 3-1 says a team may finish with one player. I don't think 7-6 requires thrower-in to throw in to a teammate, only that the pass go directly onto the court. Q: In this unlikely situation where a team is finishing with one, may he/she throw in to himself/herself, assuming the player releases the throw-in legally and is in bounds when trying to receive the pass?

No.

All the other provisions of the game apply -- including the "be the first to touch the inbounds pass" violation

[BigJoe]

If the last player fouls an opponant, how bad is it that we have a 10% foul shooter at the line and have to wait until he hits two free throws because of the lane violation for not having two defenders on the bottom two spots? Would we clear the lane in that situation since there will be no rebounds? I hope this never happens to me. Has it actually happened to anyone out there?

[just another ref]

Originally posted by BigJoe
If the last player fouls an opponant, how bad is it that we have a 10% foul shooter at the line and have to wait until he hits two free throws because of the lane violation for not having two defenders on the bottom two spots? Would we clear the lane in that situation since there will be no rebounds? I hope this never happens to me. Has it actually happened to anyone out there?

We had a big debate on this issue recently on one board or the other. My opinion was that if you had only one player on the floor, this rule goes out the window. Others disagreed. Which brings up the question: If you had a player who only had one leg, would it be possible for him to obtain legal guarding position?

[Rich]

I've never had a game get down below four players. Under FED rules, I'd likely not continue with one player.

I did have two youth rec games this weekend where six players came on the floor. One time I told the coach that I didn't call for a power play. The other time I told him that he wasn't allowed to pull his goaltender for an extra attacker. Both times I got blank stares, of course, but when you work six straight games you need to amuse yourself somehow.

I've called 12 of these games in two weeks and haven't had a misbehaving parent or coach in any of them. I feel safe in relaying this since the jinx will be off by the time I work there again in February.

Rich

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
I did have two youth rec games this weekend where six players came on the floor. One time I told the coach that I didn't call for a power play. The other time I told him that he wasn't allowed to pull his goaltender for an extra attacker. Both times I got blank stares, of course, but when you work six straight games you need to amuse yourself somehow.

"New rule this year, coach -- you're only allowed 5 players at a time."

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by just another ref

We had a big debate on this issue recently on one board or the other. My opinion was that if you had only one player on the floor, this rule goes out the window. Others disagreed.

Have to disagree - the one player team more than likely put themselves at a disadvantage by fouling out, and I'm not going to give them a "bonus" by doing so. (If, however, all but one player has been injured, I'm probably suspending the game!)

Which brings up the question: If you had a player who only had one leg, would it be possible for him to obtain legal guarding position?

Yes, for two reasons. First, the requirement to have "both" feet on the floor implies that you have two feet to place on the floor, which obviously can't happen in this case. Second, the front page of the rule book states that the rules should be interpreted to "make reasonable accomodations for disabled athletes." There's nothing unreasonable about making it so that this player doesn't get called for a block every time A1 comes in and clears him out to the floor.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Just another Ref

Which brings up the question: If you had a player who only had one leg, would it be possible for him to obtain legal guarding position?

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
First, the requirement to have "both" feet on the floor implies that you have two feet to place on the floor, which obviously can't happen in this case.

JustanotherRef's point is does the requirement to have "both" bottom marked lane-spaces occupied during a free throw imply that you have two defenders to place in those spots? I think the logical parallel is nice. I'm surprised that you would choose to reason one way for the first question and exactly the opposite for the other.
The reasoning that you give second involving the reasonable accomodations for disabled athletes supports your dichotomy much better.

[just another ref]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
[B[/B]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
First, the requirement to have "both" feet on the floor implies that you have two feet to place on the floor, which obviously can't happen in this case.

JustanotherRef's point is does the requirement to have "both" bottom marked lane-spaces occupied during a free throw imply that you have two defenders to place in those spots? I think the logical parallel is nice. [/B][/QUOTE]

Exactly my point. How many times have we heard a player who has been whistled for whatever infraction say: "But I couldn't help it.!!" This is the only time I can think of where this is absolutely true. (Are there others? Somebody will tell us.) This would be a violation with no way to avoid it. Clank...whistle...violation...and so on and so on... Theoretically, we could be here forever. Let us search frantically through the "Intent and Purpose of the Rules" section. Advantages and disadvantages, balance of power, equal opportunity between offense and defense, sporting behavior and fair play, emphasize cleverness and skill, etc. etc. I can't see where any of that directly applies. It all comes down to this. You may not see this situation in your lifetime, one player left. If it does happen the one player team has to have the lead or the game would be over. Chances are there is not much time left. About the only strategy in this case is watch them score, slowly take the ball out of bounds and on a count of 4, release a high long lob pass as far down court as possible that will stay in bounds as long as possible. The last thing this single player should want to do is foul and stop the clock. But if it does happen I for one will let the defender take 1 inside position and everybody else can take any position they want and please let's get this over with.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

JustanotherRef's point is does the requirement to have "both" bottom marked lane-spaces occupied during a free throw imply that you have two defenders to place in those spots? I think the logical parallel is nice

Not quite. At least to me, the both in regards to FT shooting referred to both lane spaces. The lane spaces are there whether or not someone fills them (until, of course, the paint wears off of the floor) - no dichotomy here.

Of course, logic and philosophy aside, I'm still going by the reasonable accomodations section.

[Nevadaref]

Mark,
The parallel in the leg analogy is not to whether the second lane-space is there or not, but to whether or not the second defender is present. Much like the second leg, there is not one.