You can chalk it up to too much eggnog if you wish.
However, you aren't going to get off that easily on this one.

Look at the example I gave in my last post with the thrower tossing the ball straight up in the air. He has not passed the ball directly into the court here either. So if we use your logic from your last post and STOP here. We should call a violation at this time. That's not correct.

The throw-in and the debate continues!

I'm lost on this one too. What Nevadaref is asking is where is the rule that says the touch by a teammate is a violation? Does the touch end the throw-in?4-41-5 says:
The throw-in ends when the PASSED ball touches, or is touched by, an inbounds player other than the thrower. If a player on either team briefly touches the ball, on the inbounds side, then the thrower jerks the ball back and throws a pass before 5 seconds has expired, what makes this a violation? Like many others, this is a situation that I have never seen happen.

JAR, don't let Nevada cloud the situation for you. 9-2-11 Note states that "The thrower may penetrate the plane provided he/she does not touch the inbounds area before the ball is released on the throw-in pass. The opponent in this situation may legally touch or grasp the ball." It does not say that a teammate of the thrower may touch the ball, does it? If that were the rule, there would be no point in saying that the defender could touch the ball. Anyone could touch it.

You have described one way a throw-in can end. Does the throw -in end if:

5 seconds elapse?
the thrower steps inbounds?
the thrower moves off the spot?
the thrower throws the ball agianst the wall behind him?

The answer to all these situations is yes, because a violation has been committed. When a teammate of the thrower touches the ball while the thrower still has it, it's a violation because the thrower has not passed the ball directly to the court. He has touched a teammate on the court with the ball. That is not the same as tossing the ball up in the air to himself or bouncing it on the floor OOB. That's apples to oranges.

If it were legal for a teammate to touch the ball, then the thrower could then toss the ball inbounds and retrieve it himself and not violate 9-2-6, which says "The thrower shall not touch the ball in the court before it touches or is touched by another player." He could his teammate on the floor with the ball and then toss the ball inbounds and go get it.

Does that help you see how absurd this idea is?

Eggnog? YUCK!!
 

Here ya go Nevada!

4-4-4
A ball which touches a player or an official is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual' s location.

So, if the ball touches the thrower's teammate, it is the same as touching the floor at the teammate's location. That means the ball has touched inbounds and is no different than if the thrower touched the ball to the floor inbounds. Isn't that a violation? :p

Comments? :)

Re: Eggnog? YUCK!!
 

This brings us back to my original "issue".

What if the ball is touching an opposing player, who is legally defending the inbounding pass, while still in the throw-in status of the inbounder.

Could we consider this the same as the inbounder who releases it toward the court and the defender knocks it back and inbounder catches the ball? That is an easy call, OOB by inbounder, now it's the defending team's ball. :D

Re: Re: Eggnog? YUCK!!
 

9-2-11 Note
NOTE: The thrower may penetrate the plane provided he/she does not touch the inbounds area before the ball is released on the throw-in pass. The opponent in this situation may legally touch or grasp the ball.

We have nothing.

There isn't one.
It also doesn't say that a teammate of the thrower may NOT touch the ball, does it?

The point of stating this is to make sure that we know the defender may touch it without receiving a T. Please notice that this note is listed under article 11, which only restricts the OPPONENTS from breaking the boundary plane. This is why the note also only mentions the opponent.
May the teammates of the thrower break the boundary plane? YES! Is there a rule or note that says they may? NO! But since there is not one which says they may not, they can! That is my whole point. There is nothing that says the teammate may not touch this ball. Therefore, he can!


Actually, this is the ONLY way in which a non-alternating-possession throw-in may end. This is a subtle point, but you missed this missed one. Check out 6-3-4+5. They pertain only to alternating possession throw-ins, not regular throw-ins. As you point out below, all of the following are violations and do end this specific type of throw-in.

In each case, a violation has been committed.

Clever, and a nice try. Except that it is refuted by the fact that this is illegal since the throw-in has not ended in this case.
4-41-5 The throw-in ends when the passed ball touches, or is touched by, an inbounds player other than the thrower.

My analysis now has you mistaken about when a typical throw-in ends and still unable to cite a rule stating that it is illegal for a teammate to touch the ball while it is in the thrower's hands.


[Edited by Nevadaref on Dec 31st, 2002 at 03:45 AM]

Here ya go BktBallRef...
 

My comments are:
You have cited a rule which pertains to the ball touching only a single player. In the case we are discussing, the ball is simultaneously touching two players. Therefore, a more appropriate rule for you to be quoting would be 7-1-2 which tells us that the ball is out-of-bounds when it touches any player who is out-of-bounds. Since the thrower never released the ball, the ball has continuously maintained out-of-bounds status.
Also, 4-4-1 tells us that a ball which is touching more than one player is in the backcourt if any player touching it is in the backcourt.
Finally and probably most importantly, consider what you would call in the situation where A1 and B1 are both touching the ball and A1 is OOB and B1 is inbounds. Everyone on this board knows to call the ball out-of-bounds caused by A1.
So clearly if the ball is touching one player who is inbounds and one who is OOB, the rules tell us the ball is to be considered OOB. Hence, in the play we are discussing with the thrower still holding the ball and a teammate, who is inbounds, touching it, the ball is OOB.
PS BktBallRef, I do enjoy defending the challenges you are posing to my ruling. :)

Re: Here ya go BktBallRef...
 

Uh,Nevada,isn't that exactly what Tony has been trying to tell you for the last coupla days?If A1 is OOB and A2 is in bounds,and they're both touching the ball,it's an OOB violation caused by A1.The ball touched a player(A2)in bounds legally,became alive,and then immediately became dead when it touched an OOB player(A1). That's using the exact same logic as you so ably stated above.

No, my logic and Tony's are different. He is trying to make the case as you outline above. Live ball, ball inbounds when A2 touches it, then ball OOB and dead because A1 is still touching it. My stance is very different.

I say the ball became live when it was at the disposal of the thrower, but that the ball MAINTAINED out-of-bounds status the entire time during this throw-in because when two players are touching the ball simultaneously and one of them is out-of-bounds the rules tell us that the ball is considered to be OOB. I'm saying that the ball was NEVER inbounds. A2 touching it doesn't give it inbounds status because A1 is still holding it at that time. Therefore, A1 cannot cause it to be OOB because it is already OOB during the throw-in, which, as I have been saying all along, hasn't ended yet.

Now if A2 were the only player touching the ball, then, yes, it becomes inbounds and the throw-in ends, but that is not what is happening here. See the difference?

I say the ball became live when it was at the disposal of the thrower, but that the ball MAINTAINED out-of-bounds status the entire time during this throw-in because when two players are touching the ball simultaneously and one of them is out-of-bounds the rules tell us that the ball is considered to be OOB. I'm saying that the ball was NEVER inbounds. [/B][/QUOTE]Nevada,do you have a rule citation that will back up that last statement?

It's inbounds if B1 touches it,but it's not inbounds if A2 touches it?

You're right.This is fun!:D

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 31st, 2002 at 05:43 AM]

See my post listed as Dec 31, 7:25 AM for the rules citations.

As long as thrower A1 is still holding it, it remains out-of-bounds in both cases.

I just thought of a way to prove to you that the ball stays OOB in this case.
Consider the case where B1 grabs/touches the ball and then lets go while thrower A1 continuously holds the ball. This is not an OOB violation. This means the ball's status did not go OOB, inbounds, OOB again. Rather it was OOB, stayed OOB, and now continues to be OOB.
No matter if the player that touches the ball is a teammate or opponent this inbounds/out-of-bounds status of the ball must be the same on this play. Since we can agree on the ball's status if the opponent hits it, we can now agree how to treat it when a teammate hits it.

[Edited by Nevadaref on Dec 31st, 2002 at 05:59 AM]

Whoa,now you're contradicting casebook play 7.6.3SitA. In that one, B1,who is inbounds, touches a live ball held by A1 who was OOB for a throw-in,and the ruling is that it does NOT remain OOB.

He's been contradicting rules and cases since this discussion started and he's done it so much he's confused himself. Yet, he's not cited a single rule that backs his stand and no one is comong to rescue him either.

He talks about how a throw--in can end, yet doesn't understand that a violation causes a throw-in to end. This is a violation. Then he starts on some tangent about how only an AP throw-in ends this way. :confused:

4-4-4 states that "A ball which touches a player or an official is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual's location." In this case, touching a teammate inbounds with the ball is the same as touching the floor inbounds. I guess he thinks that's not a violation either. Perhaps he should read:

7.6.3 SITUATION B: During an attempted throw-in, A1: (a) holds the ball through the plane of the end line and then passes it; (b) steps through the plane (makes contact with the floor inbounds) before passing the ball to A2; or (c) holds the ball through the plane and hands it to A2. Ruling: A legal throw-in in (a), but a throw-in violation in (b) and (c).

Touching the floor inbounds is no different than touching A2 inbounds.

Then, he makes this ridiculous statement. "Finally and probably most importantly, consider what you would call in the situation where A1 and B1 are both touching the ball and A1 is OOB and B1 is inbounds. Everyone on this board knows to call the ball out-of-bounds caused by A1. So clearly if the ball is touching one player who is inbounds and one who is OOB, the rules tell us the ball is to be considered OOB. Hence, in the play we are discussing with the thrower still holding the ball and a teammate, who is inbounds, touching it, the ball is OOB. " READ 9-2-11 NOTE!! It's right there and tells us who can touch the ball in this situation. And A2 can't. :(

I hoped a couple of days away from this thread would help him but it hasn\'t.

BTW Woody, does this type of twisted logic sound familiar? Remember zimp/slider? I believe Neveada has exposed himself!

a dose of reality
 

When A1 hands the ball in to A2 it is a violation:9-2-2.
He "failed to PASS the ball directly into the court."
Don\'t most of us blow the whistle as soon as A2 touches the ball, anticipating the handoff, thereby making the rest of this discussion irrelevant.