Designated spot Throw-in muffed??

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The same way a team can request a timeout when the official puts the ball down for RPP. They aren't holding it, but it's still at their disposal.

Do you have a reference that suggests the ball is still at their disposal after a fumble?

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Do you have a reference that suggests the ball is still at their disposal after a fumble?

Peace

The same number of references you have to show it's not.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The same number of references you have to show it's not.

According to the definition of "At Disposal" it does not suggest a player is still in the disposal of the thrower.

Also the definition of fumble means an accidental loss of player control when the ball is unintentionally drops or slips from the player's grasp.

Now obviously there is no player control of a ball from a thrower by rule but that was the word used in the case play.

I am just not sure there is any support that the ball is still at the disposal of the thrower (9.1.1 does not give that support either).

All I am asking is for support by rule. I am not sure we can give a timeout when the player is responsible for losing the ball and going to violate and the ball is no longer by definition at their disposal.

Peace

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

According to the definition of "At Disposal" it does not suggest a player is still in the disposal of the thrower.

Also the definition of fumble means an accidental loss of player control when the ball is unintentionally drops or slips from the player's grasp.

Now obviously there is no player control of a ball from a thrower by rule but that was the word used in the case play.

I am just not sure there is any support that the ball is still at the disposal of the thrower (9.1.1 does not give that support either).

All I am asking is for support by rule. I am not sure we can give a timeout when the player is responsible for losing the ball and going to violate and the ball is no longer by definition at their disposal.

Peace

It seems to me this is backward logic. We shouldn't be asking where "by rule" does it state the ball is still at the disposal of the player. We should ask when, by rule, is it no longer at his disposal.

The way I've always read the rules is that once one status is obtained (player control, team control, location, airborne player, legal guarding position), that status remains until, by rule, it changes. If no rule clear exists to end the previous status and/or begin a new status, then the status continues.

If the ball rolls onto the court it's no longer at the disposal of the throw-in team as either the throw-in ends or a throw-in violation occurred if the ball didn't go directly onto the court.

If the ball is fumbled and is rolling around outside the boundary, the throw-in hasn't ended. What, by rule, ends the status of "at the thrower's disposal?"

This thread has me questioning when "disposal" really ends on a legal inbounds play. Is it, by rule, when the thrower releases the ball or when the throw-in ends once the ball is legally touched?

[fiasco]

If the throw-in starts when the ball is at the player's disposal, shouldn't it stand to reason that the throw-in is suspended when the ball is no longer at the player's disposal?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by fiasco

If the throw-in starts when the ball is at the player's disposal, shouldn't it stand to reason that the throw-in is suspended when the ball is no longer at the player's disposal?

The concept of a "suspended throw-in" has no basis or definition in the rules.

The throw-in has a start and an end. If it ends with a TO, foul, or violation, then another throw-in will (or might) start. Since you don't "resume" a throw-in, what sense is there in thinking of one as "suspended"?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

It seems to me this is backward logic. We shouldn't be asking where "by rule" does it state the ball is still at the disposal of the player. We should ask when, by rule, is it no longer at his disposal.

The way I've always read the rules is that once one status is obtained (player control, team control, location, airborne player, legal guarding position), that status remains until, by rule, it changes. If no rule clear exists to end the previous status and/or begin a new status, then the status continues.

If the ball rolls onto the court it's no longer at the disposal of the throw-in team as either the throw-in ends or a throw-in violation occurred if the ball didn't go directly onto the court.

If the ball is fumbled and is rolling around outside the boundary, the throw-in hasn't ended. What, by rule, ends the status of "at the thrower's disposal?"

This thread has me questioning when "disposal" really ends on a legal inbounds play. Is it, by rule, when the thrower releases the ball or when the throw-in ends once the ball is legally touched?

I am willing to follow any such directive, but we cannot say something is when it does not fit the definition. Also the term fumble has a definition too. What is telling to me is there does not seem to be case play that suggests you can call a timeout to save a violation. I would think if that was a viable option that would be listed somewhere. I am looking but I cannot find such interpretation at this time.

BTW, I did not read this play as everything took place outside of the boundary. It does not say either way, so I was thinking the fumble took place onto the court. I can see how this could easily change if it took place completely out of bounds too. I just want something concrete to have a player call a timeout when they are not holding the ball anymore after they have had the ball in their disposal.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am willing to follow any such directive, but we cannot say something is when it does not fit the definition. Also the term fumble has a definition too.

Yep -- "accidental loss of player control." Until this year, that would have meant "inbounds" so it wouldn't have been applicable to the play at hand.

I'd suggest that the deletion of the word "inbounds" from the definition of PC was NOT meant to change the definition of fumble (and is another one of the unintended consequences of the way they tried to change the TC Foul rule)

BTW, I did not read this play as everything took place outside of the boundary. It does not say either way, so I was thinking the fumble took place onto the court.

Interesting. I clearly assumed that it was all OOB. If the ball goes inbounds, then it's either play on or a throw-in violation.

Frankly, I think the strongest argument for "TO NOT allowed" is by extending the similar play that happens during a FT -- here, it's an immediate violation. (9.1.1A)

[JRutledge]

Bob, this is why I am asking. It does not seem to be clear that there should be a time out allowed. I am not stuck to my position either, just want to know what the rules support either way.

Peace

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Frankly, I think the strongest argument for "TO NOT allowed" is by extending the similar play that happens during a FT -- here, it's an immediate violation. (9.1.1A)

Well, it's an immediate violation if the player was clearly and solely at fault for the fumble. The case book indicates that if the ball was fumbled in the process of the official administering the ball, there is no violation.

[Brick43]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yep -- "accidental loss of player control." Until this year, that would have meant "inbounds" so it wouldn't have been applicable to the play at hand.

I'd suggest that the deletion of the word "inbounds" from the definition of PC was NOT meant to change the definition of fumble (and is another one of the unintended consequences of the way they tried to change the TC Foul rule)



Interesting. I clearly assumed that it was all OOB. If the ball goes inbounds, then it's either play on or a throw-in violation.

Frankly, I think the strongest argument for "TO NOT allowed" is by extending the similar play that happens during a FT -- here, it's an immediate violation. (9.1.1A)

This was the exact point made by my counter in this discussion.

[Brick43]

Thanks for all the input. In the case I read it as fumbled out of bounds, that is why it is a violation to go pick it up. They have stepped outside the 3' wide designated spot? If the ball was fumbled onto the court then A-1 could move outside this area.

And I as well wonder when does at the disposal end?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Brick43

Thanks for all the input. In the case I read it as fumbled out of bounds, that is why it is a violation to go pick it up. They have stepped outside the 3' wide designated spot? If the ball was fumbled onto the court then A-1 could move outside this area.

And I as well wonder when does at the disposal end?

I read it as in bounds because the case play with the very same situation on a FT gives the same ruling (9.9.1).

But you can bounce a ball out of bounds as well on a throw-in. So I do not see going to get a ball as leaving the designated spot area automatically. They can move their feet, just as long as they do not leave the area over the spot.

Peace

[billyu2]

So if the thrower-in fumbles the ball and it is no longer at his disposal then we would have to stop the throw-in count correct? I don't think so. If the throw-in count continues then the ball must still be at the player's disposal, so grant the time out. (assuming the fumbled ball is OOB and the player did not leave the designated spot)

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by billyu2

So if the thrower-in fumbles the ball and it is no longer at his disposal then we would have to stop the throw-in count correct? I don't think so. If the throw-in count continues then the ball must still be at the player's disposal, so grant the time out. (assuming the fumbled ball is OOB and the player did not leave the designated spot)

That's what I was trying to get at earlier in a roundabout kind of way.