Thrower-in delay

[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.

[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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Loudwhistle2

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

Look at the definition of a throw-in to see when it ends.

[Toren]

Originally Posted by Loudwhistle2

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

6-4-5 is the citation.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by loudwhistle2

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?

6-4-5

[Loudwhistle2]

Originally Posted by Freddy

6-4-5

Thanks guys, blew that last year, not this year!

[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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

I'm looking for a parallel here. The only other "offensive" violations I can think of during a try for goal would be basket interference and goaltending. Both of those would kill a shot, so you'd have to same the same for all violations.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

That's the best reasoning I've heard for these rulings. And yet, I still have never seen either called - the going OOB during a teammate's shot, or swinging elbows, by a teammate. Of course, neither happens very often, which contributes to the rarity of such calls.