Throw-in violation

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Again, a situation I think deserves specific case plays. A2 catches OOB then we have a throw-in violation on Team A and ball goes back to original spot. B2 catches the ball OOB and we have a floor violation and the ball goes nearest the spot of the violation. Does B2's violation cause the throw-in to end?

Incorrect. Both are OOB violations, neither are throw-in violations.

The thrower only needs to throw the ball such that it touches a player who is inbounds OR out of bounds to legally complete the throwin.

When A2 or B2 touches the ball, it is an OOB violation because A2/B2 caused the ball to be OOB.

If the ball goes OOB before/without being touched by a player, it is a throwin violation.

Of course, in spite of what the rule says, Art Hyland has pulled one out of thin air to say that it goes back to the original spot when a player touches the throwin while OOB. There really is no reason nor rules justification for that.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Incorrect. Both are OOB violations, neither are throw-in violations.

The thrower only needs to throw the ball such that it touches a player who is inbounds OR out of bounds to legally complete the throwin.

When A2 or B2 touches the ball, it is an OOB violation because A2/B2 caused the ball to be OOB.

If the ball goes OOB before/without being touched by a player, it is a throwin violation.

Of course, in spite of what the rule says, Art Hyland has pulled one out of thin are to say that it goes back to the original spot when a player touches the throwin while OOB. There really is no reason nor rules justification for that.

Right, I think the key to this play is to consider who is guilty of the violation. The ball is always put in play at the spot of the violation (with exceptions), so if the violation is on A2, that's the spot. If it's on A1, that's the spot.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Incorrect. Both are OOB violations, neither are throw-in violations.

The thrower only needs to throw the ball such that it touches a player who is inbounds OR out of bounds to legally complete the throwin.

When A2 or B2 touches the ball, it is an OOB violation because A2/B2 caused the ball to be OOB.

....

I didn't make myself clear. I want the a throw-in caught OOB by A2 to be considered a throw-in violation with the ball returned to original spot, while a throw-in caught OOB by B2 to be a OOB violation with ensuing throw-in at spot of violation.

Still, a throw-in caught OOB by B2, would the throw-in be considered ended for the purposes of the AP arrow?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I didn't make myself clear. I want the a throw-in caught OOB by A2 to be considered a throw-in violation with the ball returned to original spot, while a throw-in caught OOB by B2 to be a OOB violation with ensuing throw-in at spot of violation.

Why would you want that?

Keep it simple.

A player who touches the ball while OOB has committed an OOB violation and the throwin spot is the spot where they touched the ball.

Why complicated it with which player touches it or whether it is from a throwin or not? Your idea doesn't really solve or improve anything?

You'd also have to decide if A2 stepped OOB before or after touching the ball....and the splitting of that hair could make a big difference regarding the throwin spot. If you keep it at the spot of the touch, it is simple.

If A2 and B2 are both going for the ball and one is OOB, you have to split another hair...who touched it first and the result could drastically different. As it is, you only care that the player OOB touched the ball...the order doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Still, a throw-in caught OOB by B2, would the throw-in be considered ended for the purposes of the AP arrow?

And, yes, the throw in legally ended (unless the contact itself was illegal as in a kicked ball)....AP would switch.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Why would you want that?

Keep it simple.

A player who touches the ball while OOB has committed an OOB violation and the throwin spot is the spot where they touched the ball.

Why complicated it with which player touches it or whether it is from a throwin or not? Your idea doesn't really solve or improve anything?

You'd also have to decide if A2 stepped OOB before or after touching the ball....and the splitting of that hair could make a big difference regarding the throwin spot. If you keep it at the spot of the touch, it is simple.

If A2 and B2 are both going for the ball and one is OOB, you have to split another hair...who touched it first and the result could drastically different. As it is, you only care that the player OOB touched the ball...the order doesn't matter.
....

Not all that complicated, we should be capable of making those distinctions. And we have to make certain disctinctions anyway to determine whether or not time should come off the clock. Team A is responsible for a legal throw-in. A2 catching the ball while already OOB violates that, IMO.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Not all that complicated, we should be capable of making those distinctions. And we have to make certain disctinctions anyway to determine whether or not time should come off the clock. Team A is responsible for a legal throw-in. A2 catching the ball while already OOB violates that, IMO.

Except that a legal throwin isn't defined to require that. In fact. It is explicitly defined to not require that.

And still, why make more variations in situations....either way team B gets the ball.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Except that a legal throwin isn't defined to require that. In fact. It is explicitly defined to not require that.

And still, why make more variations in situations....either way team B gets the ball.

If it so explicit why the ruling from Mr. Hyland that puts the ball back at the original throw-in spot even if B2 makes the catch?

And definitions and rules can change and evolve and you may or may not agree with them. Thus the phrase "IMO".

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If it so explicit why the ruling from Mr. Hyland that puts the ball back at the original throw-in spot even if B2 makes the catch?

And definitions and rules can change and evolve and you may or may not agree with them. Thus the phrase "IMO".

Maybe he didn't read the rule before making his statement.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Incorrect. Both are OOB violations, neither are throw-in violations.

Except that pesky 9-2 PENALTY keeps making me wonder. . .

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Except that pesky 9-2 PENALTY keeps making me wonder. . .

Then go with 9-3-2 and its penalty.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Today, however, after reading the PENALTY section that follows 9-2, I'm not so sure. It reads as follows:

Quote:
PENALTY: (Section 2) The ball becomes dead when the violation or technical foul occurs. Following a violation, the ball is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in at the original throw-in spot.

Notice that the penalty applies to the entirety of Section 2. So this now seems to say to me that the ball goes to the original throw-in spot, regardless of who causes the violation.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Except that pesky 9-2 PENALTY keeps making me wonder. . .

You're right that penalty 9-2 specifies the original spot. But what infraction has been committed in that section where that penalty would be relevant? None of the infractions in section 2 have anything to do with another player catching the throwin pass while being OOB.

SECTION 2 THROW-IN PROVISIONS
ART. 1 . . . The thrower shall not leave the designated throw-in spot until the ball has been released on a throw-in pass.
ART. 2 . . . The ball shall be passed by the thrower directly into the court from out-of-bounds so it touches or is touched by another player (inbounds or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched.
ART. 3 . . . The thrown ball shall not be touched by a teammate of the thrower while the ball is on the out-of-bounds side of the throw-in boundary-line plane, except as in 7-5-7.
ART. 4 . . . Once the throw-in starts, the ball shall be released on a pass directly into the court before five seconds have elapsed.
ART. 5 . . . The thrower shall not carry the ball onto the court.
ART. 6 . . . The thrown ball shall not touch the thrower in the court before it touches or is touched by another player.
ART. 7 . . . The thrown ball shall not enter the basket before it touches or is touched by another player.
ART. 8 . . . The thrown ball shall not become lodged between the backboard and ring or come to rest on the flange before it touches or is touched by another player.
ART. 9 . . . The thrower shall not be replaced by a teammate after the ball is at the thrower's disposal, except as in 7-5-7.
ART. 10. . . The opponent(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary-line plane until the ball has been released on a throw-in pass.

[BillyMac]

What makes this confusing is that we're comparing old NFHS interpretations, with new NFHS interpretations, with new NCAAM interpretations, with new NCAAW interpretations. I'm getting a headache. I need a couple of aspirin.