Throw in spot correct???

[Jeremy Hohn]

Last 10 seconds of the ball game. Team A is in the lead and attempts to throw a full court pass up by 2 points. The ball goes over everybody and goes out of bounds. The problem is that my co-official and I can't agree on the throw in spot. What happened was, A1 was throwing in on a designated spot along the baseline. The ball goes the length of the court, and in an attempt to save the ball, a2 jumps with one foot on the other baseline, and then touches the ball. Do we have a touching inbounds since the player touched out of bounds before touching the ball? In other words, do we make team B go the length of the floor to attempt a tie, or do we give them the ball underneath their opponents basket at point blank range. I talked it over with my co-official and wasn't real sure. I called the coaches together and told them that a2 touching the ball after contacting out of bounds was the same as the ball touching out of bounds with no inbounds touch established. I gave it to team b right under the basket, which they then threw the ball away, so it didn't really matter. Neither coach had a problem with my explanation, but I was going to post this on the board to see if I just got lucky and if it happens again, I'll call it correctly. Thanks for feedback fellas/ladies!!!

[Tom Cook]

I'm just finishing my first year of basketball, but I'll take a stab at this without a rulebook just for the sake of discussion. I think that A2 touching the ball after stepping on the baseline and establishing himself out-of-bounds, causes the ball to go out of bounds and the ball should be thrown in at the spot nearest his violation. Now I'll try to look it up in the rules. Good question!!

[slow_whistle]

Jeremy,
I think you did two things very well. One, you consulted with the other official to make the correct call. If player A2 was out of bounds when he touched the ball, the ball comes back to Team B's baseline. Great call. There is nothing wrong with a brief consultation among officials to make the right call. And secondly, due to the time remaining in the contest and the tight score explaining the call to BOTH coaches was very good officiating.

[Mark Padgett]

NF rule 9-2-2. It is a violation by the thrower-in (hate that term, makes me want to "thrower-up") to "fail to pass the ball directly into the court so it touches or is touched by another player (inbounds or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched." The words "inbounds or out of bounds" are part of the rule, they were not inserted by me.

Since the inbounds pass was touched by a player out of bounds on the court, the violation was not by the inbounder (there - isn't that term better?).

Since the violation was by A2, the spot is nearest where A2 was when he caused the ball to be ruled OOB. NF rule 7-2-2 also supports this.

[This message has been edited by Mark Padgett (edited May 15, 2000).]

[Todd VandenAkker]

Jeremy, the way you wrote your explanation, it's confusing where the ball really was thrown in originally (i.e., near whose basket), but I agree with Tom. When A2 touched the ball, HE caused the ball to be out-of-bounds. Thus, the ball should be put in play right at the spot nearest to where he touched the ball, which if I understood things correctly would have meant team B should have gotten the ball under A's basket and have to go the length of the court to score.

[This message has been edited by Todd VandenAkker (edited May 15, 2000).]

[Bart Tyson]

The violation wasn't by the thrower-in. The violation was the player touching the ball while oob. Spot throw-in at spot of violation under A's basket.

[Schmidt MJ]

My first reaction is that the ball should come back to the original throw-in spot. It would seem to me that when A2 touched the ball AFTER stepping OOB it is no different than if he had not touched the ball until after IT had touched out of bounds. In effect, since A2 had touched OOB, the ball was then OOB as soon as A2 touched it. Therefore, the ball was never touched before going OOB. I would have brought it back to the oringinal throw-in spot. Although I must admit there have been some good points brought up for the other side of this situation, specifically the rule stating that the thrower-in (sorry Mark) is to throw the ball so that it is touched or touched by a player (inbounds or out of bounds) before going out of bounds untouched. This rule would almost seem to contradict itself. How can a player cause the ball to be OOB if he touches the ball while he is also OOB and the ball was never inbounds to begin with. I'm looking forward to some additional responses on this topic.

[Brian Watson]

I don’t have the rule book in front of me, but I will assume that the rule was copied correctly into this thread. The way it is written, I interpret the throw-in technically ending as soon as the ball is touched by a player( regardless of court location), or touches OOB. So, I would spot the ball where A2 was standing.

With that in mind, had I never seen this post I would have brought the ball to the original spot Just another example of this site making better officials.

Now, if we could just get the newbies to read down the posts and to quit asking how to become an official every week we’ll be set.

[Camron Rust]

Jim Dixon and I (among others) debated this heavily 6 months or so ago. We came to a scenario that made it obvious that the violation is on the player who touched the ball while he had and OOB location (in the air or otherwise).

What if that player were a defender, B2? Would it not be a violation? Would you give the ball to A or B? If it were a throwin violatoin and not not a violation on B2 then B2 could get a position such that he was touching OOB and just by tapping the ball on the throwin from A1 to A2, he would cause a throw-in violation and B would bet the ball. This is clearly NOT what we would want.

From this case, it should be clear that it is a violation for the player to touch the ball while OOB.

In the original case, the spot would be where A2 touched the ball. B would have to go the length of the court.

Going back to the rule, it is only a violation on the thrower for the ball to go "out of bounds untouched." If any other player is involved, it can't be "untouched". Nor do OOB calls differentiate between offense and defense.

[This message has been edited by Camron Rust (edited May 15, 2000).]

[Jeremy Hohn]

I can see your points now guys! The violation can only be on the thrower-in if it goes oob untouched! That is a good way to remember it!

[Todd VandenAkker]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schmidt MJ:
My first reaction is that the ball should come back to the original throw-in spot. It would seem to me that when A2 touched the ball AFTER stepping OOB it is no different than if he had not touched the ball until after IT had touched out of bounds.

---

That's the way it USED TO be, a long time ago (not that I'm that old). But not anymore. Them were the days when an inbounder (I use that term very carefully, lest I make someone sick) could throw the ball off a defender, have it hit him where he stands OOB, and still get the ball back for a new 5 seconds. I think it's easier now--player who last touches the ball determines whether it is inbounds or OOB.

[Jim Dixon]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Camron Rust:
Going back to the rule, it is only a violation on the thrower for the ball to go "out of bounds untouched." If any other player is involved, it can't be "untouched". Nor do OOB calls differentiate between offense and defense.

---

A clearer explanation than most of us can usually come up with!!

Thanks, Camron.

Jim Dixon

[slow_whistle]

Great postings guys. I took a shot at the answer without consulting the rule book. (Mistake)! I have never seen this play particular on the court yet, but I now will make the "right call" if it does happen. One of the reasons I visit this site is to improve my rule skills. Thanks.

[Jeremy Hohn]

Similar play-

A1 is inbounding. B1 bats the ball off of a1. We give the ball to team b, correct? Even though a1 was out of bounds, he still is responsible for making the ball go oob. So the fact that a1 was technically part of oob, we still give the ball to team b, so my earlier play, the fact that b stepped on the line was irrelavent and we should've made them go the legnth of the court. Oh well, I sold it!! But now I know!!

[doghead]

Brian Watson, Just wanted you to know that this "newbie" frequently reads these discussions and learns from everyone! Sometimes I even print something like this off and keep it in a binder with my rule books...great reference material! Thanks everyone!