Thrower-in delay

[youngref33]

Coaching friend of mine asked me this. Can't find anything in the rules against it. He was told it was a technical.

Thrower-in passes ball in. He then delays before stepping in bounds.

Do we have a call? If so what? And can you give me a rule or case book reference I can show him?

[26 Year Gap]

I couldn't find it in this year's rule book, but it was encompassed by the delay in returning to the court provision. There was a sister play of leaving the court for an unauthorized reason, which was changed from a technical to a violation a few seasons back. I had hopes that this one would have been changed to a violation as well, but it hasn't been. Bigger fish to fry, I guess.

[mbyron]

Probably thinking of 10-3-2: A player shall not..."purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds."

The case play gives you an idea of how to call this:

10.3.2 SITUATION A: A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in. A1 completes
the throw-in to A2 and then purposefully delays his/her return by taking
four or five steps along the end line prior to coming inbounds behind a screen set
by A3 and A4. A1 gets a return pass from A2 and takes an unchallenged try for
goal. RULING: A1 is charged with a technical foul for purposefully delaying
his/her return to the court following the throw-in. A1’s movement out of bounds
along the end line was to take advantage of the screen and return to the court in
a more advantageous position.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Probably thinking of 10-3-2: A player shall not..."purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds."

The case play gives you an idea of how to call this:

10.3.2 SITUATION A: A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in. A1 completes
the throw-in to A2 and then purposefully delays his/her return by taking
four or five steps along the end line prior to coming inbounds behind a screen set
by A3 and A4. A1 gets a return pass from A2 and takes an unchallenged try for
goal. RULING: A1 is charged with a technical foul for purposefully delaying
his/her return to the court following the throw-in. A1’s movement out of bounds
along the end line was to take advantage of the screen and return to the court in
a more advantageous position.

Bingo, bango. That's it. But they have 2 more years of altering the sleeve rule before they can properly address this one.

[youngref33]

Thanks for the info guys!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by youngref33

Thanks for the info guys!

This does not, imo, refer to a player who takes a second to come back in.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This does not, imo, refer to a player who takes a second to come back in.

It is the guy who is by the lane line and then pops back in near the arc that should draw the whistle. But it should be a violation, not a technical. I hope that turns up in the survey this year, and they (the rules committee) address it rather than more sleeve drama.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

It is the guy who is by the lane line and then pops back in near the arc that should draw the whistle. But it should be a violation, not a technical. I hope that turns up in the survey this year, and they (the rules committee) address it rather than more sleeve drama.

+1. We can hope they treat it like the "swinging elbows" that was not called when it was a T, so they changed it to a violation.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

+1. We can hope they treat it like the "swinging elbows" that was not called when it was a T, so they changed it to a violation.

Yet, they allow for a "swinging elbows" violation, by the shooter's teammate, to kill a shot - see 9.13.1, which seems terribly inconsistent.
So, if the teammate swings elbows and makes contact, the ball isn't dead until the attempt has ended, but if there's no contact, the ball is immediately dead, and cannot count. Weird!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

Yet, they allow for a "swinging elbows" violation, by the shooter's teammate, to kill a shot - see 9.13.1, which seems terribly inconsistent.
So, if the teammate swings elbows and makes contact, the ball isn't dead until the attempt has ended, but if there's no contact, the ball is immediately dead, and cannot count. Weird!

That's a different issue, but I agree with you.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

Yet, they allow for a "swinging elbows" violation, by the shooter's teammate, to kill a shot - see 9.13.1, which seems terribly inconsistent.
So, if the teammate swings elbows and makes contact, the ball isn't dead until the attempt has ended, but if there's no contact, the ball is immediately dead, and cannot count. Weird!

Just a like a violation by the offense during an AP throw-in will cause the arrow to change but a foul by the offense will not.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

Yet, they allow for a "swinging elbows" violation, by the shooter's teammate, to kill a shot - see 9.13.1, which seems terribly inconsistent.
So, if the teammate swings elbows and makes contact, the ball isn't dead until the attempt has ended, but if there's no contact, the ball is immediately dead, and cannot count. Weird!

Wierd AND uncommon. I've yet to see a swinging elbows violation by a player that didn't have the ball.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Wierd AND uncommon. I've yet to see a swinging elbows violation by a player that didn't have the ball.

Nor have I. The inconsistency of the penalties, in seeming inverse proportion to the acts, is curious. It goes to the conversations ln the Forum regarding poor wording of rule changes.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

Nor have I. The inconsistency of the penalties, in seeming inverse proportion to the acts, is curious. It goes to the conversations ln the Forum regarding poor wording of rule changes.

I'm guessing the reason the violation by a teammate of the shooter kills the shot is because if the shot goes in there would be no way to penalize the violation.

A foul by the shooter's teammate on the other hand comes with the penalty of one personal foul charged to the offender and possibly free throws for the offended team.

[Loudwhistle2]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Just a like a violation by the offense during an AP throw-in will cause the arrow to change but a foul by the offense will not.

Can someone point me to where I can find this foul situation to be true. I thought the offense loses the arrow when they foul on an AP throwin?

Thanks