Throw in situation:

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
[/B]

BTW Woody, does this type of twisted logic sound familiar? Remember zimp/slider? I believe Neveada has exposed himself!
[/B][/QUOTE]Nah,nowhere near what Slider/Zimp was like,Tony.NevadaRef has made some excellent posts,with good rules knowledge and logic.I think that I've personally agreed with a lot more of his posts than I've disagreed with.I can't remember agreeing with very many of Slider's posts.I also think that Nevada's intent sometimes is to just foster discussion on a topic,which ain't unnecessarily a bad thing.I think that he also may have a slight tendency towards chain-yanking,too(which tendency is also shared by a few people on this board).

I also think- whointhehell really cares what I think,and why should they.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 31st, 2002 at 12:30 PM]

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by just another ref
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.

Thank you.

[jking_94577]

So just to recap. A1 is trying to inbound ball. B1 sees that ball is across imaginary plane and slaps at it. B1 makes contact with ball but ball retains in possession of A1. Is it OOB since it has touched a player who is in INBounds and then back OOB?

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by jking_94577
So just to recap. A1 is trying to inbound ball. B1 sees that ball is across imaginary plane and slaps at it. B1 makes contact with ball but ball retains in possession of A1. Is it OOB since it has touched a player who is in INBounds and then back OOB?

No.

[jking_94577]

So is there a rule that says that A2 cannot be the one who touches the ball instead of B1?

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Good question. All I can find along these lines are the casebook plays .... the way we interpret the rules.

I didn't read the entire thread so I hope I'm not repeating too much.

See CB 7.6.3B, page 55 of this season's book.
During an attempted throw-in, A1: (a) holds the ball through the palne 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).

Held ball situation comes a little later in CB 7.6.3F, next page.

CB 7.6.3A shows no violation if contact is by Team B

Are these interpretations firmly supported by the rulebook??? Inadvertant/unintentional handoff to Team B - okay, good defense. Intentional handoff to Team A - not okay, violation. I think several areas of our rules have built-in contradiction.

The casebook often helps with these types of questions as they are an EXTENSION of the rules and more precisely show us their intent.

[jking_94577]

I agree with the casebook case (c). However, remember that the ball was not handed to A2. It is still in the possession of A1. So this casebook case should not apply right?

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by jking_94577
So is there a rule that says that A2 cannot be the one who touches the ball instead of B1?

No there isn't. But there is a rule that says B can do it. If both teams were allowed to do it, there wouldn't be any need for the statement in 9-2-11 Note, would there?

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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. [/B]

I do not believe that I am in contradiction with this casebook play at all. In that play B1 knocks or grabs the ball out of A1's hands. A1 is no longer holding the ball. Therefore, it becomes inbounds and play continues.
I am arguing the case where A1 is able to continue to hold onto the ball. This is the situation in which I am saying the ball has OOB status. Therefore, there is no contradiction with this casebook play.

[Nevadaref]

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

Tony, this is exactly correct. I'm sorry that you are confused, but here are the pertinent rules.
4-41-5 ...The throw-in ends when the passed ball touches, or is touched by, an inbounds player other than the thrower.
6-3-4 ...The direction of the possession arrow is reversed immediately after an alternating-possession throw-in ends. An alternating-possession throw-in ends when the throw-in ends or when the throw-in team violates.
6-3-5 ...The opportunity to make an alternating-possession throw-in is lost if the throw-in team violates. If either team fouls during an alternating-possession throw-in, it does not cause the throw-in team to lose the possession arrow.

This is purely syntax, but it is important. A violation does not cause a throw-in to end, unless it is an alternating-possession throw-in, it merely interrupts it.
A foul only interrupts both kinds of throw-ins. Its occurrance does not cause either type of throw-in to end. Notice that the arrow does not reverse if a team fouls during an alternating-possession throw-in. This is because the throw-in never ended; it was interrupted.
Hopefully, you learned something here.

Originally posted by BktBallRef
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."

As I wrote in a post earlier in this thread, this is for a single player. Notice the key phrases "a player" and "individual's location." If the ball is touching more than one player at the same time, this rule doesn't apply.

Originally posted by BktBallRef
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.

Okay, this is much harder. The two are not the same. Again you are trying to compare a situation in which only one player is touching the ball to a situation in which two players are simultaneously touching the ball. Thus the comparison doesn't work.
A player who steps onto the court while making a throw-in has violated, but only because the casebook play that you cite says so. To see my point ask yourself why this is a violation? Which one of the provisions of 9-2 has the thrower violated? The rules committee realized that the thrower has not violated any of them if he keeps one foot OOB, but wanted to make it clear that they had intended this to be a violation. Hence the casebook play. It would have been better if they had just added a new provision that said "Step inbounds with either one or both feet before releasing the ball on a throw-in pass."
I admit that this seems strange at first, but after one examines it, it is true.
I'll go through each article to see if stepping inbounds violates any of them.
1. Has the thrower left the throw-in spot? Not if he has kept one foot on or over it and only stepped into the court with one foot.
2. If the thrower has only stepped onto the court with one foot he is still located OOB. Therefore, if not for the clarification of the casebook play, he could still make the required pass.
3. Didn't pass the ball. 4. Didn't take 5 seconds.
5. Did he carry the ball onto the court? This one is the closest yet. It depends on your definition of "onto the court." Since the rules tell us that a player standing with one foot inbounds and one foot OOB is considered OOB, I would consider the player to not have carried the ball onto the court until BOTH feet have touched entirely inbounds.
6. No, because the ball is not in the court.
7. Didn't throw the ball. 8. Didn't throw the ball. 9. No one replaced him. 10. Never passed the ball. 11. Only applies to opponents. 12. No one else OOB.

Originally posted by BktBallRef
READ 9-2-11 NOTE!! It's right there and tells us who can touch the ball in this situation. And A2 can't.

We have been over this. The note does NOT say that A2 may not touch the ball. The rules of basketball are written such that anything which is not specifically stated to be illegal is considered to be legal. Therefore, the touching by A2 is legal.

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

I never met this zimp/slider, but as for exposing myself...


[Edited by Nevadaref on Jan 9th, 2003 at 05:39 AM]

[whistleblower]

Just one question about the AP throw-in part of this. Doesn't the AP arrow get changed when the ball is placed at the disposal of the thrower? I'm at work and don't have my rulebook in front of me.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by whistleblower
Just one question about the AP throw-in part of this. Doesn't the AP arrow get changed when the ball is placed at the disposal of the thrower? I'm at work and don't have my rulebook in front of me.

This much of this thread I can keep up with - no.

As pointed out above, the AP throw-in ends when either (a) the throw-in ends (i.e., the ball is touched on the court) or, (b) the throw-in team violates.

If you change the arrow when the player has the ball, the refs might get confused and think the other team is entitled to the throw-in.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
If you change the arrow when the player has the ball, the refs might get confused and think the other team is entitled to the throw-in.

Or worse, if a foul was committed before the throw-in was completed, the throw-in team would still be entitled to the next AP throw-in. So if you changed the arrow when you handed the ball to the inbounder, you've just screwed them out of a possession.

Chuck

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

This is purely syntax, but it is important. A violation does not cause a throw-in to end, unless it is an alternating-possession throw-in, it merely interrupts it.
A foul only interrupts both kinds of throw-ins. Its occurrance does not cause either type of throw-in to end. Notice that the arrow does not reverse if a team fouls during an alternating-possession throw-in. This is because the throw-in never ended; it was interrupted.
Hopefully, you learned something here.

As I wrote in a post earlier in this thread, this is for a single player. Notice the key phrases "a player" and "individual's location." If the ball is touching more than one player at the same time, this rule doesn't apply.

Okay, this is much harder. The two are not the same. Again you are trying to compare a situation in which only one player is touching the ball to a situation in which two players are simultaneously touching the ball. Thus the comparison doesn't work.
A player who steps onto the court while making a throw-in has violated, but only because the casebook play that you cite says so. To see my point ask yourself why this is a violation? Which one of the provisions of 9-2 has the thrower violated?

I got this far in your posts,Nevada,before my brain started to go numb.Let me answer these.I'll try to answer the rest after I have a nap.
1)Throw-ins for non-AP violations under R9-2 NEVER end if a violation occurs?They are only INTERRUPTED?What happens to these interrupted throw-ins?When do they get applied?On the next throw-in?When do they end?Do they ever end?
I learned something here.I've never heard of an "interrupted throw-in" before.Could you point out the rulebook reference to me for that one?
2)If player A1 throws the ball from the backcourt into the frontcourt and simultaneously hits an an official and A2,the rule doesn't apply and the ball has never gone into the frontcourt?Are you sure of that?
3)What part of R9-2 has a player violated when he steps onto the court?I don't think that that one is really a tuffy.Try R9-2-5-"Carry the ball onto the court".

[DMRefGal]

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).

Once you have touched A2 with the ball (or A2 has touched the ball), you have made "contact with the floor inbounds" because "A ball which touches a player or an official is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual' s location." We already know the handoff is illegal, so, once A2 lets go after the touch, the ball is then back OOB in A1's hands. Right?

If this analysis is correct (and I am going with it), I propose the following interpretation:

As long as both of them have their hands on the ball, there is no violation until:

a) A1 lets go of the ball - then you have a violation for the hand-off.

b) A2 lets go of the ball - then you have a violation for OOB.

AND

If A1 and A2 are both holding the ball and do not let go, and neither keeps a pivot foot, would there be a traveling call because the ball is touching an inbounds player and is not OOB until A2 lets go?