Throw in situation:

[williebfree]

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)

[firedoc]

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.

[BktBallRef]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
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.

[dblref]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
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.

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?

[RookieDude]

Originally posted by dblref

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

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by dblref
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?

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
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.

You're kidding, right?

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.

[RookieDude]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

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.

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]

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by RookieDude

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

You're kidding, right?

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.

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.

[BktBallRef]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
If a teammate touches or grasps the ball, then the thrower has not passed the ball directly into the court.

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.

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Touching or grasping, it's no different.

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

That is true. But ...

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.