Strange OOB Situation

[Hoosier Daddy]

I heard this situation from a buddy of mine. It happened in a varsity girls game this past weekend. It's sorta confusing, but hopefully it makes sense.

Situation: Following a travel by B1, A calls a timeout. They will be awarded a spot throw in on the end line. Team B breaks the huddle on time and is ready for play before the final horn. Team A continues to delay, after a few more seconds the ref blows the whistle and sits the ball down and begins the 5 second count. Here's where it gets interesting. B2 becomes confused and steps out of bounds believing it is their throw in. (Despite her coach yelling and the official telling her not to.) She picks the ball up, then finally realizes it belongs to the other team and sits it back down. Meanwhile, Team A breaks the huddle and is running to put the ball in play. It's too late, the official blows for a 5 second call and gives the ball to Team B

Now, here's the question. Keep in mind the girl sat the ball back down before A1 could grab it and throw it in. Was whistling the 5 second call the correct one? Could you call a technical foul on B2 for reaching through the plane? Or a T for some sort of delay of game? Should you blow the whistle can begin another 5-second count. This seems logical but allows Team A another opportunity, despite being too slow in returning to the game. I'm interested in both rulebook interpretations and "common" sense rulings. THANKS!!

[Adam]

Delay of game warning on B for crossing the plane. T is a little harsh here. B2 just bailed A out of a 5 second count.

Snaqwells

[NCAAREF]

Well, by the rule once the ball is at the disposal of the thrower in, in this case placing it on the floor, it is a Technical Foul on the defense for reaching across the plane and touching the ball.

[LarryS]

Originally posted by Hoosier Daddy
B2 becomes confused and steps out of bounds believing it is their throw in. (Despite her coach yelling and the official telling her not to.) She picks the ball up, then finally realizes it belongs to the other team and sits it back down.

Technically, B2 didn't reach across the endline...she was OOB and picked up the ball. I think I would have a hard time calling a T. I would, however, issue a delay of game warning and start a new 5 second count.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by NCAAREF
Well, by the rule once the ball is at the disposal of the thrower in, in this case placing it on the floor, it is a Technical Foul on the defense for reaching across the plane and touching the ball.

I understand where you are coming from concerning the technical foul, but here is how I have handled this play in the past. (Fortunately, I have never had this play during a college game, but it happens at least once a year during the high school season.)

NFHS Rules: How I handle this play is dependent upon whether a player is anywhere near the throw-in spot.

1) If Team A is still in its huddle, when B1 breaks the plane to pick-up the ball: If Team B has not yet received a warning for breaking the plane, then I go with the violation and issue the warning. If Team B has already received a warning then I have no choice to go with the team technical foul for breaking the plane.

2) If A1, like B1 is going for the ball and both have a somewhat equal opportunity to get to the ball and B1 beats A1 to the ball, then I would have a technical foul for interfering with the ball while it is at the disposal of Team A for the throw-in, and if Team B has not yet received a warning for breaking the plane I would issue them a warning.

NCAA Rules: How I handle this play is dependent upon whether a player is anywhere near the throw-in spot.

1) If Team A is still in its huddle, when B1 breaks the plane to pick-up the ball: Violation by B1 for breaking the plane.

2) If A1, like B1 is going for the ball and both have a somewhat equal opportunity to get to the ball and B1 beats A1 to the ball, then I would have a technical foul for interfering with the ball while it is at the disposal of Team A for the throw-in.


In the final analysis, this is a play that falls under the "you had to see it" to be able to determine whether a technical foul is warranted or not.

[BktBallRef]

You're all wrong!

There are 2 case plays that cover similiar situations. In both plays, B actually inbounds the ball. But since neither is an officials mistake, it is correctable. In both, if there is any confusion as to who's ball it, which there appeared to be in this play, then no action is taken against B. If the act were judged to be deliberate, it would be a T for delay of game.

In this case, I would simply pick the ball up and administer the throw-in again.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

I agree Tony. What are the case plays?

If B has not delayed the game (which they couldn't possibly do because Team A isn't in a direct act of inbounding the ball) then no warning or Technical foul is warranted. If Team A were available while Team B was possessing the ball then I could see a warning as appropriate, and starting the 5 second count over for Team A.

[BktBallRef]

Here's one of the plays. I'll have to search for the other when I have time. Off to a doubleheader right now.

A SPECIFIC UNSPORTING ACT
10.1.8 SITUATION: Immediately following a goal or free throw by Team A, or following a time-out in this situation, A1 inbounds the ball to A2 and A2 subsequently throws the ball through A' s basket. Ruling: The following procedure has been adopted to handle this specific situation if it is recognized before the opponents gain control or before the next throw-in begins.
a. Charge Team A with a technical foul.
b. Cancel the field goal.
c. Cancel any common foul(s) committed and any nonflagrant foul against A2 in the act of shooting.
d. Put "consumed" time back on the clock.
Comment: If there is no doubt the throw-in was a result of confusion, especially after a time-out, the entire procedure would be followed except no technical foul would be charged. This procedure shall not be used in any other throw-in situation in which a mistake allows the wrong team to inbound the ball.

[Hoosier Daddy]

BktBallRef, after looking through the book I thought that same case play was the closest. Does it matter that this was not after a made goal?

[BktBallRef]

No, it wouldn't matter.

Here's the point. If an official administers the ball to the wrong team for a throw-in and the throw-in is completed, it's not correctable. If the official places the ball on the floor and the wrong team grabs it, or if the wrong team grabs the ball after a made basket, an official has not administered the throw-in. In either case, this case play would apply and the situation can be corrected.

If it's an honest mistake, kill the play and give the ball to the proper team. If you feel it's intentional, which would be difficult to judge IMHO, assess a T.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Whoaaaa Nellieeee!!!

BktBallRef and DownTownTonyBrown lets get back to the original play, which is a resuming play situation.

Team A is to make a designated spot throw-in after a team timeout. The administering official sounds his whistle, indicates both verbally and visually. There is not mistaking that Team A is to make the throw-in. At the appropriate time the administering official places the ball on the floor at the spot of the designated spot throw-in and starts a five second count. Why? By rule the ball is at the disposal of Team A for a throw-in. Team A's throw-in has started. B1 cannot break the plane of the boundary line. If B1 does she has commited a infraction of the rules regarding throw-ins. It does not matter if B1 is confused. That fact that B1 is confused is her problem and is of no concern to the administering official. This is not a mistake by the officials.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Whoaaaa Nellieeee!!!

Nellie isn't here.

BktBallRef and DownTownTonyBrown lets get back to the original play, which is a resuming play situation.

Okay, let's do.

Team A is to make a designated spot throw-in after a team timeout.

From the case play:

Immediately following a goal or free throw by Team A, or following a time-out in this situation,...

The boldface indicates that the case play can also be used as a resuming play procedure.

The administering official sounds his whistle, indicates both verbally and visually. There is not mistaking that Team A is to make the throw-in. At the appropriate time the administering official places the ball on the floor at the spot of the designated spot throw-in and starts a five second count. Why?

Is there any reason to assume that the official in the case play didn't do the same thing? No, there isn't.

By rule the ball is at the disposal of Team A for a throw-in. Team A's throw-in has started. B1 cannot break the plane of the boundary line.

No different than the case play.

If B1 does she has commited a infraction of the rules regarding throw-ins. It does not matter if B1 is confused. That fact that B1 is confused is her problem and is of no concern to the administering official.

From the case play.

Comment: If there is no doubt the throw-in was a result of confusion, especially after a time-out, the entire procedure would be followed except no technical foul would be charged.

I don't see how the case play could be any clearer. In the play posted, there was a violation prior to the TO. In the case play, there was a made FG or Ft prior to the TO. It doesn';t matter what heppened prior to the TO, in either case. It doesn't matter whether it's a spot throw-in or not. That case play still applies.

This is not a mistake by the officials.

This we agree on. That's why the situation is correctable. This is not an official's mistake.

But you, on the other hand, are mistaken. The fact that a made FG or FT occurred in the case play does not change the ruling. Do you have a case play to back up your argument?

I bet not. In fact, I know you don't.

[Hawks Coach]

100% right BBR. To charge a T here is flat-out wrong. Your original cases made that clear, and you rebuttal was on point as well.

Not clear what MTD is using as his reference when he interprets these rules I am eagerly awaiting anything he may have to support this ruling other than his assertion that he is following the rule.