A1 has a designated spot throw-in. He reaches the ball across (clearly into) the "throw-in boundary plane" and B1 grabs it creating a "held ball" sitation. What is the call?

A. Ball out of bounds by A1 since it OOB while the ball is legally touched by a player in bounds.

B. Go to AP arrow.

C. Other (Explain your choice)

I don't have my rule book with me since I am at work, but I believe that this would be a herld ball and possession would be determined by the arrow (NFHS). If others disagree, I would love to hear from you.

Firedoc is correct. It's simply a held ball because A1 is legally OOB. There is no violation. Go to arrow. Now, if the throw-in was an AP throw-in, A would keep the ball has the throw-in has not ended and A still has the arrow. Perhaps that's what's confusing you.

Yes, and the casebook reference on this is 6.3.5 B on page 48.

Tony: Since A1 is touching the ball OOB while the ball has already broken the plane (clearly in), why would this not be a violation by A1 for touching an in-bound ball while being OOB. Is it because it was a throw-in?

Yes...
and here's a twist to it.
Even though A1 is "legally OOB" it is a violation if a teammate of A1 grabs the ball from A1.
For some reason it is not a violation for an opponent to grab the ball, but it is if a teammate grabs the ball.
Go figure.

Dude

Yep. Since A1 is legally OOB, in this case, he isn't violating and niether is B1. But as dude pointed out, A2 would cause a violation.

If we wish to be precise, this isn't exactly correct. In both cases it is not a violation on A1 to be touching the ball, since he has not yet released the ball on a throw-in pass, and therefore, the throw-in has not yet ended.
Now, obviously B1 has done nothing wrong if he grabs the ball after A1 holds it across the boundary plane.
But if A2 grabs the ball, it depends on whether or not A1 releases it. If A2 merely touches the ball and then lets go while A1 continuously holds onto the ball, no throw-in provision has been broken and there should not be a call. The throw-in simply continues.
However, if A2 takes the ball out of A1's hands, then A1 (not A2) has violated. Provision 9-2-2 has been broken, since A1 has failed to pass the ball directly into the court. Handing the ball to an inbounds teammate is not the same as passing it to him.

You're kidding, right? :confused:

A violation has been committed as soon as A2 touches the ball. It's not necessary for him to take possession. A1 did not pass the ball and it touched a player who is inbounds. That's a violation of 9-2-2. 9-2-11 Note allows the defense to touch the ball, not the offense. The either team could legally do this, as you suggest, there would be no need for the Note.

Thanks for clearing that up Nevadaref...but I still have that nagging question of why it isn't a violation on A1, per 9-2-2, when A1 dosen't pass the ball directly into the court...when B1 grabs it...but it is when A2 grabs it.

Dude
P.S.(and to be precise, I didn't say A2 would cause the violation....one of the "big dogs" did.) :)

[Edited by RookieDude on Dec 29th, 2002 at 03:13 PM]

Let's assume A1 is not involved in a point shaving scheme and, therefore, wants team A to win.

He is, therefore, not going to want team B to take control of the ball. If B1 grabs the ball, it is because he is going after it whereas A2 is being passed to. Yes, this gives an advantage to the defense, but it can make for a good, exciting play that is allowed by rule.

No, I'm not kidding.
I do believe it is necessary for A2 to take possession before there is a violation. Remember A1 has 5 seconds to fulfill the requirements of 9-2-2. If A2 touches the ball when the throw-in count is at 2, A1 still has time to make a pass that would meet 9-2-2. The only restrictions on a teammate during a throw-in are listed in articles 3, 9, 10, and 12.
I think that note is there to make extra sure that officials don't give a T to the defender in this situation, and that is why it specifically states that the opponent may legally touch the ball. Furthermore, the note only says opponent since the restriction in article 11 (where the note is found) is only for the opponents.
If this interpretation troubles you, try thinking about it this way. Since a teammate of the thrower may legally have his arm through the boundary plane, would you call a violation if he reached over while standing inbounds and touched the ball while it was still in the thrower's hands, but on the OOB side of the plane?
I say there is nothing in the rules against this.

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.

It does not say that a teammate may TOUCH or grasp the ball. If a teammate touches or grasps the ball, then the thrower has not passed the ball directly into the court. Touching or grasping, it's no different. If you think there is, please point out the rule that says the ball cannot be grasped but can be touched. 9-2-2 is the rule which prevents the ball from being grasped by the teammate, so why does it make it legal to touch it.

I'm sorry but you're wrong about this.

That is true. But as I stated above, if A1 never releases the ball, then the throw-in has not yet ended and he may still pass the ball directly into the court before the five second count expires. Thus not violating 9-2-2.

I agree. Both are legal.

As for your emphasizing the part about opponent may touch the ball, I already answered this. But just to be complete I'll add to what I wrote earlier:
A rule granting permission for a player (opponent or teammate) to do something, does not automatically proscribe another player from this action.
We agree that the opponent may touch or grasp the ball in this situation and that the note under article 11 specifies this. Where we disagree is that I say that there is no rule which says that a teammate may not also do just this. You claim that 9-2-2 covers this. That is clearly not correct, since A1 may fulfill this requirement at anytime before the throw-in ends.
For example, A1 may throw the ball straight up in the air, catch it after it comes down, and then throw a pass directly into the court which touches another player without violating as long as the pass was made before the 5 second count expired.
The simple fact is that there is no rule which prevents A2 from contacting the ball or the thrower during the throw-in.

STOP! There is no "But..." You just admitted that the thrower has not passed the ball directly onto the court. The ball has touched a player on the floor. It was not an opponent, which by rule, is the only player who can touch it. Therefore, he has violated. Period. That's it. End of story. No buts.

You've always seemed pretty level headed but you're way off base the past couple of days. :(

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.

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.:D

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

Re: a dose of reality
 

Thank you.

Throw-IN
 

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?

Re: Throw-IN
 

No.

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

he's baaaaaack!
 

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.

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? 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.

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.

I never met this zimp/slider, but as for exposing myself...
http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/Gif/bart-moon.gif

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

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.

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

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".

Seems pretty simple to me
 

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?

Confusion reign over me...
 

Surely I'm not alone here in being confused and seeing the contradiction in our rules. The only ones that seem confident are Nevada and BBref... and yet they are opposed... I think.

Rule (9-2-11 Note) specifically states B1 may touch the ball without violating the throw-in provisions when A1 holds the ball across the plane - no Technical foul.

No rule says that A2 cannot touch the ball when A1 holds it across the plane. However casebook play 7.6.3B item (c) says it is a violation if the ball is handed to A2. It doesn't say touching is the violation but handing off to A2 is a violation. So despite the fact that we all like to say "If there is no rule disallowing the action, the action is acceptable." this is not true for this case. There is no rule disallowing a handoff but the case book specifically states that to hand the ball to a teammate is a violation.

This, however, is not true for the defense. As an act of defense, B1 can touch the ball or grab it (unintentional hand off?) from A1 when it is held across the plane. This is supported by 9-2-11 Note and CB 7.6.3A.

Additionally, as an act of defense, B1 can grab the ball and create a held ball situation. This is supported by CB 7.6.3F. In this case, the touch by B1 does not end the throw-in and does not create an OOB against A1. If the throw-in was an AP throw-in (Team A has the AP arrow), then Team A retains the AP arrow. If the throw-in was NOT an AP throw-in, it is now. Held ball go... to the AP arrow and give the ball to the appropriate team for subsequent throw-in.

After a touch by B1, A1 can pull the ball back across the plane, or wrestle it free from B1's grasp, and still complete his throw-in. This seems to also be supported by CB 7.6.3F.

AND THE CRUX OF THE MATTER IS.... can A2 touch the ball when it is held through the plane by A1? I don't see a clear cut answer in the rules or in the casebook.

Despite the exception given above, I'm tending to lean towards the answer "If there is no rule disallowing the action, the action is acceptable." Perhaps we could infer that it is not allowed per 9-2-11 Note but I feel like that note is only saying that if A1 is dumb enough to hold the ball through the plane, B1 can touch it, hit it, grab it, steal it etc. without receiving a technical foul. I do not feel the Note says A2 cannot touch the ball in the same situation.

How do we decide? Is there a bigger dog/entity that can assist us? Could NCAA rules help us understand this situation? As much fun as it has been seeing postings of opposite interpretations and attempts to justify those interps, I would like to see a definite answer... no offense to either BBRef or NRef.

As an aside, we have also discussed the act of passing and seem to have decided that a handoff does not constitute a pass. We have said that bouncing the ball off the wall behind the passer so it enters the court violates 9-2-2. No one has said that throwing the ball straight up and catching it, or dribbling it violates 9-2-2... I guess because it is not entering the court? Someone please clarify this also.

I has been a very engaging discussion!

According the NFHS rules they never end. The violation interrupts them just the way a foul or a time-out does. Now the penalty for the violation or foul is administered and the game continues from there. There is no going back!
The reason this is so is because of the way the NFHS rules book defines the word end. They do not use the Webster's definition, but provide their own definition. They tell us precisely what it means for a throw-in to end. Similiarly we are told what it means for a quarter to end. This is purely definitional and one must think out of the box here. Lawyers would have an easier time with this because quite often terms are given a legal definition that differs from their everyday usage. That is the case here.
No, I can't. The term interrupted is mine. I guess I could have used "a throw-in which never ends," but that is more confusing. As I wrote above, these throw-ins have no end as far as basketball defintions are concerned. In common language we agree that they ceased to continue, which means that they ended, but for NFHS rules there was no end. You can see this quite clearly when considering the AP throw-in that is stopped because of a foul. The reason that the arrow doesn't reverse is that the this throw-in never ended. We simply penalize what stopped the throw-in (in this case a foul) and then continue the game from there.
JR, you have a sharp eye and I am glad that you make me clarify my statements. I am not saying that there is no rule which covers this situation, just that 4-4-4 does not cover the whole picture. When the ball hits two or more players simultaneously, we have to expand our thinking. If one player is inbounds and one is OOB, rule 4-4-4 by itself would not tell us whether the ball is to be considered inbounds or out-of-bounds. There is just as much merit for both. The rules committee therefore clarified with additional rulings that in the case of a multiple simultaneous touch if any player is OOB the ball is OOB. In your case the official is treated as part of the floor. If both the official and the player are inbounds in the frontcourt then the ball is now in the frontcourt. If either one is touching the backcourt or OOB the ball is in the backcourt or OOB. Hope that is clear.
I answered this in the post that you are quoting. If the player keeps one foot OOB is he on the court? I say no. He is OOB. It is obvious that when 9-2-5 says "Carry the ball onto the court" what it means is carry the ball inbounds, since it is certainly not a violation to be carrying the ball OOB during a throw-in. The rules committee simply got caught in their own definitions here. They wanted one foot stepping inbounds on a throw-in to be a violation, but realized that they had defined a player with one foot inbounds and one foot OOB to be OOB. Hence we have this casebook play to augment the rules.

If your brain is numb again, go have a brown pop!

Not so simple...
 

The crux of my argument is that this in not right. I maintain that when two or more players are touching the ball simultaneously 4-4-4 (the rule you quoted above for ball location) is insufficient because it does not tell us which of the two individuals' location should be used for determining the ball's location. If we view the situation from the point of A1, the thrower, A1 is OOB and is touching the ball the entire time so if we applied rule 4-4-4 to him, the ball's location would be OOB. See the problem? Therefore we must dig deeper and we all know that the rules committee made a decision that if any of the players touching a ball at the same time are OOB then the ball is OOB. As I wrote in an earlier post on this thread, during this play I believe that the ball NEVER obtains inbounds status since A1 never let go of it. Thus the ball was OOB the whole time, so there cannot be a violation for OOB.



This I agree with. A1 has violated 9-2-2 since he has failed to PASS the ball inbounds. A pass and a hand off are not the same. This is made crystal clear in the casebook.
I maintain that this is a big NOTHING and play should continue.


Since A1 never lets go, there has not been a throw-in pass and therefore the throw-in has not ended. Thus we are still conducting a throw-in. Furthermore, since 4-41-6 NOTE ..."Pivot-foot restrictions and the traveling rule are not in effect for a throw-in."
You can't have a traveling violation either.

Yes, we are. Tony/BktBallRef maintains that since the note after 9-2-11 says an opponent may legally touch or grasp the ball that a teammate cannot. I say that since there is nothing, including this note, that says a teammate may not touch or grasp the ball while the thrower is holding it, it is legal to do so. We are both basing our opinions on the rules and have reached opposite conclusions.

Exactly.

Not true. Even I say that 9-2-2 covers this, since a hand-off and a pass are not the same thing. The thrower has failed to pass the ball. Therefore, it is a violation according to this rule.

Yes, and I say the same must be true when A2 touches the ball. Since the ball was never passed, the throw-in never ended, and the ball never became inbounds.

This means you argee with me. Tony is going to have to admit that someone else out there agrees with me!
The whole point is to put yourself in the seat of a Supreme Court Justice and read the rules and make the interpretation yourself, rather than wait around for someone else to tell you what their opinion is. That is what Tony/BktBallRef and I have tried to do. There is no fun the other way.
That's right. Even Tony/BktBallRef and I agree on this.

The clarification is that 9-2-2 is a restriction on how the ball is PASSED, nothing else. Neither tossing the ball up in the air and catching it or dribbling the ball constitute passing. Therefore, 9-2-2 has nothing to do with these actions and neither of them is a violation of this provision of the throw-in rule.
However, bouncing the ball off the wall in an attempt to make it rebound onto the court is considered a pass and since the ball did not go directly into the court, this is a violation. Yet I would not consider it a violation for a thrower to bounce the ball off the wall behind him to himself or to touch the ball to the wall while he is holding it, since I don't believe that either of these is a pass. More precisely, if Team A scores and B1 who is upset for getting burned on the play takes the ball OOB and slams it off the wall and then catches the ball clearly in a display of frustration and not an attempt to make a throw-in pass, then this is not a violation of 9-2-2.


[Edited by Nevadaref on Jan 10th, 2003 at 07:03 AM]

As the original poster of this thread
 

WOW! I did not think this situation could be so complex. :D

Having just reread four pages of dialogue, I am STILL not sure.... (Insert some absurd but appropriate animated gif here)

(hee hee hee)

Re: As the original poster of this thread
 

Willie,I think that this may be appropriate:
http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/pc-crash.gif

RIGHT ON!
 

I knew I could count on JR

I wish to register a complaint!

Not really. First, just look at the other rules (all of the rules need to be taken with respect to one another and especially the case book). 7-1-2a clearly states that the ball is OOB when it touches "a player who is out of bounds."

Now, let's consider a ball rolling from the center of the court to the OOB line. In a perfect world, the ball would only contact the court at one point. However, as the ball rolls, its shape is distorted, and you will have a time where part of the ball is in contact with the floor on the inbounds side of the line and part is in contact with the out of bounds side of the line. Do you blow your whistle and call an OOB violation? I sure hope so.

So, if the ball is touching a player standing OOB, that ball has OOB status - it doesn't matter that someone is touching it inbounds!

The casebook is key here. There are several situations/topics which are covered only in the casebook - "lag time" and end of game delay tactics are only a few. The rules do not exist in a void; we have to go to the casebook for interpretations of the rules, and those interpretations are valid, whether it seems like there is support for them in the rules book or not!

Go right ahead!
http://www.gifs.net/animate/nsmail4k.gif

What's the complaint?
 

Mark,
I agree with you on this 100%! I have been making the case all along that 4-4-4 is not helpful for the situation involving the thrower, who is OOB holding the ball, and a teammate, who is inbounds, but touches the ball. Others have quoted 4-4-4 in their arguments. What you quoted from me above was part of my counter argument.
You may have misunderstood what you quoted from me a bit. Please notice that I wrote "rule 4-4-4 by itself." We are saying the same thing.
I will clarify that what I meant was that if one only considers 4-4-4 when trying to make a ruling on this play, then one cannot tell what location the ball has since it is touching one player who is inbounds and one who is OOB. If only 4-4-4 is applied, then there is "just as much merit" for arguing that the ball is inbounds or out-of-bounds. To that you sadly responded "Not really."
In no way am I saying that the rules are unclear on this. I believe they tell us that this ball is clearly OOB. I am only saying that 4-4-4 simply was not written to cover simulateanous touching, and therefore, cannot by itself provide a clear answer here.
So to summarize, I agree with you completely and am trying to convince others who are participating in this thread that, as you say, looking other rules and cases, tells us thatThank you for making my point so very clearly.

[Edited by Nevadaref on Jan 13th, 2003 at 12:36 AM]

Thinking outside the box (or just out of my mind?)
 

This has been a very interesting discussion!

I would like to throw out a couple of more thoughts, just to see what the Supreme Court Justices think :D

First of all, does it make any difference to the discussion that A1 is LEGALLY out of bounds? The arguments stating that the ball is OOB because it is touching A1 seem to imply the usual state of affairs--a violation because the ball is touching A1 who is ILLEGALLY out of bounds. But this is not the case. Would he not still be LEGALLY OOB until the throw in ends? In the case of handing the ball into A2, the violation is not because it is touching A1 OOB, rather it is a failure to pass the ball inbounds.

Second, the rules cited to define when a ball/player is OOB are all framed from the point of view of play occurring inbounds. In such a case it is essential to define when an OOB condition occurs. However, in a throw in situation, play is occurring OOB and it becomes necessary to define when an inbounds condition occurs. Thus a thrower, who is OOB, violates when he puts one foot on the floor inbounds. It is the mirror image of a player inbounds becoming OOB by placing one foot OOB.

Perhaps there are hundreds of holes in these two ideas, but I wanted to know what you think.

I think BITS has hit on something important here.... WHEN DOES THE BALL GAIN INBOUNDS STATUS?

I want to say that inbounds status is only gained once A1 lets go of the ball... to the contrary there is the casebook play (7.6.3F) of the held ball with A1 out and B1 in. Is this contrary?

Perhaps this is a critical viewpoint that will settle the matter?

The ball is never inbounds until A1 lets go of it. And with the extension of the rules (CB 7.6.3B) A1 may not handoff to A2 - he may inadvertantly let B1 take it from him (act of defense) but may not offensively hand the ball to A2.

Hopefully, after all this discussion I will be sharp enough to let A2 touch but not take the ball from OOB A1... when it happens in a game. I'll kick myself if I call it differently.

Was that a 1/4 inch pass A1? I thought so... :)

Then why is it a violation if A1 steps onto the court while he's holding the ball?

Good diversion.
 

It's either because he is wearing a yellow shirt or perhaps there is a specific rule (9-2-5) covering this COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SITUATION.

I'm not betting on the yellow shirt deal.

BITS,
Here are my opinions on your questions:

The difference it makes is that A1 is not charged with an OOB violation. It makes no difference concerning the ball's inbounds or OOB location.

This is the correct way to look at this. Examine rule 7 and 4-4 to get a good understanding of how the NFHS has defined this.


I wish the NFHS would change this rule and define a thrower still holding the ball to be inbounds when the player touches inbounds. Then I would agree that 9-2-5 has been violated. However, the NFHS defines this thrower to still be OOB, as long as one foot is touching OOB, and also to not have left the designated throw-in spot, since one foot is still on or over it. I feel that they took the easy way out and chose to only provide a casebook play saying that touching the court inbounds is a violation. Notice that they don't say why it is a violation! I am not pleased that they left the rules untouched, since according to the rules as they are written, the thrower has not violated. It is only a violation because the Case Book play, 7.6.3SitB(b), says that it is.




[Edited by Nevadaref on Jan 16th, 2003 at 02:22 AM]

NevadaRef, thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts on my questions.

This thread has been sitting out here for awhile. The intent of the rule is simple. If a player from Team A is OOB and ready to throw the ball in, but extends the ball across the boundary line, a member of Team B shall have the opportunity to touch/slap/hit it or grab hold of it to cause a held ball. However, if a teammate of the inbounder touches/slaps/hits or grabs hold of the ball, it is a violation.

Those of you who remember years ago when a player from Team B DID NOT have the right to do what I wrote in the above paragraphs because a Technical Foul would have been called probably understand what I'm getting at. If you recall, coaches used to teach players to purposely extend the ball across the boundary plane in order to get a technical foul called. So, the change was made to stop that from occurring.

However, that change DID NOT give the Team who's inbounding the right to touch/slap/hit or grab the ball that has been extended over the boundary plane on an inbounds play.

You're preachin' to the choir, brother! http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/clap.gif

I understand!!!
 

TGR---

It is amazing how a little historical perspective adds volumes to my understanding of the intent of this rule. I am now comfortable with how to call this situation if it ever happens again.

Hopefully this is ultimate closure to this thread! :)