Thrower-in delay
 

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?

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.:rolleyes:

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.

Thanks for the info guys!

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.

+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!

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

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.

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.

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.

Dang, another rule I'm confused on.
 

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.

6-4-5 is the citation.

6-4-5

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

Words To Live By ...
 

Spoken like a true official.

Kind of like, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

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.

Leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.:)

Yep, that could kill a shot, too. So, why would elbow swinging be any different?

Who said it should be any different?

I was referring to Rob's suggestion of inconsistencies.

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.

With a shot in progress, what possible benefit could a teammate of the shooter be seeking to go OOB on purpose? I'd assert that they are only taking themselves out of any possible useful position when a shot in in the air.

Going around a defender trying to get inside position for a possible rebound.

I'm just envisioning that it will take too long to make it to a viable position if they have to go that far behind the backboard to go around a defender and get back in front of the board for a decent rebounding position.

Just said that was the idea, not that it was a good idea.