Designated spot Throw-in muffed??

[Brick43]

According to Case 9.2.1 Situation B (A-1, out of bounds for a designated spot throw-inb) 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?

[JRutledge]

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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?

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Brick43

According to Case 9.2.1 Situation B (A-1, out of bounds for a designated spot throw-inb) 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?

Yes, they can request a TO.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No longer at their disposal? Based on what?

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[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.

[mbyron]

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.

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.

[fiasco]

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

[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?

[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