Throw-in violation

[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.

[Toren]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

I had a play two weekends ago it went like this: Team A, with 1.2 seconds on the clock and up 2 points, has an sideline throw in. They call a timeout and come out with a play that gets a wide open pass down the court on the same sideline, problem is the thrower in (A1) throws it so the ball hooks out.

Player A2 who is the intended target is trying to stay in bounds and grab the ball, he fails.

I was the official who handed the ball to player A1 for the original throw in. So I had the chop of the clock. The clock ran to .7 seconds. I run down the court and ask the covering official if the player A2 was standing OOB when he caught the ball. The official says he was. I get the crew together, it's 3 man crew. I tell them, we didn't have a legal throw in, since the player was standing OOB when he caught it. I also interpret that no time could have ran off the clock and the ball should be put back at the original spot.

So Team B gets the ball on their side of the court with 1.2 and they end up missing a pretty wide open 3 pointer to win the game.

Now I'm wondering if we adjudicated it correctly. At the time, the ruling "felt" correct, and now I'm hearing both sides of this argument. But as far as intention goes, the way we adjudicated still "feels" right to me.