Throw in situation:

[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]