Designated spot Throw-in muffed??
 

According to Case 9.2.1 Situation B (A-1, out of bounds for a designated spot throw-in:(b) after receiving the ball from the official, fumbles the ball and leaves the designated spot to retrieve the fumble. RULING: a throw in violation shall be called on A-1 for leaving the designated spot.)

Question? Can A-1 call a time-out to not cause a violation?

I am in a discussion concerning this. And I am in the thinking that they can call a timeout because by rule a timeout can be granted while the ball is at the disposal of a player. I cited 4.4.7 that the ball is at the disposal once it is handed or thrown to the player. (nothing specifically says they must maintain control. Similar to the ref placing the ball on the ground and beginning his 5 second count. It is not in their control but it is at their disposal??)

Any help?

No they cannot call a timeout because the ball is not at their disposal anymore and the other team now has a chance to get the ball. I would equate this like an interrupted dribble or fumble.

Peace

No longer at their disposal? Based on what?

How exactly does the other team have the "chance to get the ball"?

Yes, they can request a TO.

The thrower once has the ball and now the ball is rolling around on the court. The throw-in has not ended, but they do not have control of it anymore. Not sure how you can call a time out if you no longer have the ball in your possession. That is my take without some hard rules evidence to dispute that point of view.

Peace

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

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

I think that there's a relevant difference. When the ball is on the floor during RPP, it's at the disposal of the player because he can pick it up without violating. Once he's fumbled it away from the spot, he can't.

I don't think the ball is still at his disposal; I'm not sure it follows that he can't call a TO. IOW, I'm not convinced the issue turns on whether the ball is at the disposal of A.

The ball is also at the player's disposal when it's rolling on the floor after a made basket.

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?

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?

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

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"?

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)

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

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?

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.

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

If the ball is bouncing around ON the court as was previously, I contend that the throwin has ended. The thrower may not have intended to make the throwin, but they did when they released the ball, deliberately or inadvertently, onto the court.

If it is bouncing around OOB after being inadvertently dropped, the throw in is in progress...and disposal is still in effect...timeout OK. Disposal starts when the ball is made available and continues until the throwin is released.

throw-in count?
 

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)

From where I sit, this OOB-control rule change creates a redundancy in 5-8-3a, which says a time out can be granted when the ball is either "at the disposal OR in control of a player of his/her team." Now, the former begats the latter, so you don't even need to mention "at disposal," do you?

If that rule were to be cleaned up and just said "in control of a player," that would settle this one. Fumble = no control = no time out. Until that day, I'd check your local listings.

rpp

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

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

Incorrect....it must be in "control of a player".....player control that is.....so, if they fumble it, it may be in team control, but not player control. So, we're back to disposal.

[QUOTE=Camron Rust;797964]If the ball is bouncing around ON the court as was previously, I contend that the throwin has ended. The thrower may not have intended to make the throwin, but they did when they released the ball, deliberately or inadvertently, onto the court.

QUOTE]

Camron, did you mean the throw in count ended? If the player fumbled the ball into the court the ball still must be legally touched for the throw-in to end, right?

[QUOTE=billyu2;798012]Yes....the count, throw in restrictions (aside from the thrower being the first to touch the ball inbounds), the ability to call a timeout, etc....have all ended. Any player except the thrower can touch/grab the ball. But the "throwin", of course, ends when it is touched.

This WAS a throwin pass...even if it was ugly as the ball left a player's hands on the throwin. It went into the court. When a player touches it, the throwin will have ended.

We asked this question at our meeting on Monday night, sent it to one of our interps and this was his reply:

That's only true if it bounces OOB and then in bounds. Otherwise, your interpreter opens the door for calling a violation for bouncing (dribbling) the ball.

Also, your interpreter seems to want to call a violation even if the fumbled ball never leaves the three foot spot. I think that's wrong.

I spoke with an interpreter today, who said the same thing. The whole point of buying your way out of it with a time out is moot.

It may be a violation, but it's not that one (necessarily).

Fumble = still in team control, according to 4-12-4....

5-8-3 How does "still in team control" enter into the issue of granting a time-out?

5-8-3.a "grants a player a time out if the ball is in control of a player or his team." A fumbled ball or interrupted dribble is in team control and a timeout can be granted....

little words
 

The correct word in 5-8-3a is of his team not or which makes a big difference. Timeouts cannot be granted during fumbles or interrupted dribbles. But on a throw-in if the fumbled ball remains OOB I believe the ball is still at that team's disposal and a timeout can be granted. Yes, no?

Thanks, billyu2

The OP did not say that the ball entered the court. If it entered the court, it was just a poorly executed throw-in. If it did not, he still has 5 seconds, even if his arms are not long enough to throw it in legally by retrieving it without leaving the spot.

Does this help anything?

5.8.3 SITUATION D:

A1 or A2 requests a time-out: (a) while airborne A1 is holding the ball; (b) while A1's throw-in is in flight toward A2; or (c) when the ball is on the floor at A1's disposal for a throw-in.

RULING: The request is granted in (a) and (c), but denied in (b), as there is no player control while the ball is loose between players.

No.

Billyu2...Thanks for the input...you are right...those words "or" and "of" make a difference...also, reading further, I see in the case book 5.8.3.F timeout not granted during an interrupted dribble....Thanks again for the clarification....