The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 26, 2012, 06:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 822
I just saw this

A1 has the ball for a throw-in. Team B is applying real good full court pressure. A2 starts running parallel and real close to the endline. A1 extends the ball past the vertical plane of the boundary line and pushes the ball against A2 and quickly pulls the ball back. It looked like A1 wanted to hand the ball to A2, but A2 did not want to grab the ball. It was like a fake hand off with the ball coming in contact with A2's belly. Violation?
What would it be if A2 is replaced with B1?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 26, 2012, 07:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Denver Colorado
Posts: 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoochy View Post
A1 has the ball for a throw-in. Team B is applying real good full court pressure. A2 starts running parallel and real close to the endline. A1 extends the ball past the vertical plane of the boundary line and pushes the ball against A2 and quickly pulls the ball back. It looked like A1 wanted to hand the ball to A2, but A2 did not want to grab the ball. It was like a fake hand off with the ball coming in contact with A2's belly. Violation?
What would it be if A2 is replaced with B1?
Without my book

pretty sure violation in the first case.

pretty positive nothing in the second case. B1 can even grab the ball if it's on the inbounds side of the boundary plane.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 26, 2012, 07:03pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
It's a violation to hand the ball to A2. IT's not a violation to fake a handoff.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 27, 2012, 05:12am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,994
Nothing in either case.
There is no rule prohibiting a teammate from touching the ball while it remains in the thrower's hands.
As Bob says the thrower just can't hand it to an inbounds teammate.
Remember "always listen to Bob."
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 27, 2012, 12:12pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Why is this not the same as A1 stepping inbounds or touching an opponent inbounds?
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 27, 2012, 12:14pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
Why is this not the same as A1 stepping inbounds or touching an opponent inbounds?
Because he's not stepping inbounds or touching an opponent.

Where's the rule that says it's a violation on the thrower to touch an opponent inbounds?
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 27, 2012, 12:24pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by snaqwells View Post
because he's not stepping inbounds or touching an opponent.

Where's the rule that says it's a violation on the thrower to touch an opponent inbounds?
9.2.5 b
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 27, 2012, 12:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
9.2.5 b
That's supposed to be an application of 9-2-5: "The thrower shall not carry the ball onto the court." This is funny already.

Here's the key claim of case 9.2.5 b:
"A1 is required to remain out of bounds until releasing the throw-in pass.
When A1 touches an inbounds player, he/she has inbound status."

Hahahahaha! Good one, NFHS! Now go read 4-35 "Player Location" and try again.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 27, 2012, 12:33pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
9.2.5 b
Interesting. I would have never called it that way. Seems like a stupid interp to me, but ok. BTW, they need to update that case play in light of 9-2-10 penalty 4.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 27, 2012, 12:36pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
That's supposed to be an application of 9-2-5: "The thrower shall not carry the ball onto the court." This is funny already.

Here's the key claim of case 9.2.5 b:
"A1 is required to remain out of bounds until releasing the throw-in pass.
When A1 touches an inbounds player, he/she has inbound status."

Hahahahaha! Good one, NFHS! Now go read 4-35 "Player Location" and try again.
Also note "other than a player/person" in 7-1-1, which determines when a player is out of bounds.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 27, 2012, 12:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
Also note "other than a player/person" in 7-1-1, which determines when a player is out of bounds.
7-1-1 is consistent with 4-35, as you'd expect.

I have no problem with making it a violation for the thrower to touch an opponent during a throw-in. But please let's not say it's a violation because that gives the thrower inbounds status and thus constitutes carrying the ball into the court!
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 27, 2012, 12:44pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
7-1-1 is consistent with 4-35, as you'd expect.

I have no problem with making it a violation for the thrower to touch an opponent during a throw-in. But please let's not say it's a violation because that gives the thrower inbounds status and thus constitutes carrying the ball into the court!
Right. The incongruency is similar to the new backcourt issues.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 27, 2012, 04:12pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
Interesting. I would have never called it that way. Seems like a stupid interp to me, but ok. BTW, they need to update that case play in light of 9-2-10 penalty 4.

But it's a question of who did the touching, I think. If the defender reaches out and touches the thrower, intentional foul. It is specified in the case play, that the thrower lost his balance and leaned over to touch the defender. Basically, the touch kept him from accidentally touching the floor, which is also a violation. (9.2.5A)

So, if this touch, for the purpose of this rule, gives the thrower "inbounds status"
I don't see why the thrower contacting a teammate, with the ball, or directly, would not be a violation as well.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 27, 2012, 04:20pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
But it's a question of who did the touching, I think. If the defender reaches out and touches the thrower, intentional foul. It is specified in the case play, that the thrower lost his balance and leaned over to touch the defender. Basically, the touch kept him from accidentally touching the floor, which is also a violation. (9.2.5A)

So, if this touch, for the purpose of this rule, gives the thrower "inbounds status"
I don't see why the thrower contacting a teammate, with the ball, or directly, would not be a violation as well.
Then call it that way. I'm not going to apply the case to that play because it goes against the written rule and does not specifically apply to the play in the OP. The principals of 4-35 and 7-1-1 should apply here, and as far as I'm concerned, they do except for the case where the player tries to maintain his balance by touching an opponent.

My guess is the wording of the case play has been in place since before they changed 7-1-1 to not include touching a person; but that's only a guess. They need to update this case play in light of recent rule changes.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 27, 2012, 04:30pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
Then call it that way. I'm not going to apply the case to that play because it goes against the written rule and does not specifically apply to the play in the OP. The principals of 4-35 and 7-1-1 should apply here, and as far as I'm concerned, they do except for the case where the player tries to maintain his balance by touching an opponent.

My guess is the wording of the case play has been in place since before they changed 7-1-1 to not include touching a person; but that's only a guess. They need to update this case play in light of recent rule changes.
Many case plays break new ground which would NEVER have been reached by reading the related rule.

Let me think of an example. I know! 4.19.8C

Better example. The dribble rule does not tell us it is a violation to touch the ball twice before it hits the floor, but 4.15.4D says it is.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:03pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1