Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 838656)

You've got two choices here. Either A2 caused an OOB violation, or A2 caused a throw in violation. Either way, it's by A2, and the spot is the same.

If this was a spot throw in, then it's an OOB violation on A2. Several years ago, the NFHS quietly changed this exact play to a TI violation (I think, by accident), then quietly changed it back.

Originally Posted by tref (Post 838655)

BNR I did read that thread & like many of our threads, it didnt seem as though we ever came to a conclusion.

Guess I'll just do what I feel is right (Lord forgive me).

Originally Posted by tref (Post 838657)

I think I'll go with an OOB violation on A2 & the throw-in at the spot of the violation instead of a throw-in violation as A2 was the receiver.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 838662)

But if A1's pass was meant to be in accordance with an end line throw-in, it would be a TI violation rather than OOB.

Originally Posted by tref (Post 838668)

I disagree, NFHS & NCAA-W says:

SITUATION 3: During an alternating-possession throw-in for Team A, thrower A1 passes the ball directly on the court where it contacts (a) A2 or (b) B2, while he/she is standing on a boundary line.

RULING: Out-of-bounds violation on (a) A2; (b) B2. The player was touched by the ball while out of bounds, thereby ending the throw-in. The alternating-possession arrow is reversed and pointed toward Team B's basket when the throw-in ends (when A2/B2 is touched by the ball). A throw-in is awarded at a spot nearest the out-of-bounds violation for (a) Team B; (b) Team A. (4-42-5; 6-4-4; 9-2-2; 9-3-2)

7-2-1 If the ball is out of bounds because of touching or being touched by a player who is on or outside a boundary line, such player causes it to go out.

2/21/12 Throw-in violations (Rule 9-5.1.b)
The interpretation of 9-5.1.b has been that when a player is standing on a boundary line or straddling
a boundary line when she catches a passed ball from a thrower-in, that player has caused the ball to be out of bounds...

Art Hyland has me confused :(

Originally Posted by tref (Post 838655)

BNR I did read that thread & like many of our threads, it didnt seem as though we ever came to a conclusion.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1 (Post 838674)

If I may be so bold, here's the conclusion for NCAA-M games. This email came directly from Art Hyland and the ruling will be included in next year's case book.


For NFHS, I would have said that I also had a definitive ruling, but in looking at the PENALTY section of 9-2, I'm not so sure.

NFHS 9-2-2 says that "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."

[Complete off-topic question: why are there hyphens in "from out-of-bounds" but no hyphens in "inbounds or out of bounds"? I would never have noticed it except that I just typed it out :confused: ]

Ok, so prior to today, I would have stated with 100% confidence that a throw-in pass that was caught by a player who was standing out of bounds (out-of-bounds?) would be put back in play at the spot where it was caught. After all, the inbounder did his job. He threw the ball so that it touched a player out of bounds before it went out-of-bounds untouched. The violation must have been committed by the player who caught the ball, and so that's where the ball would be put back in play.

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

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.

Thoughts?

Originally Posted by rockyroad (Post 838678)

Scrappy, my only issue with Mr. Hyland's response to you is his use of "designated spot" on the endline. If the score was after a made basket by the opposing team, and then team B violates on the ensuing throw-in (never allowing the throw-in to end), then why would A's throw in be at a designated spot? Wouldn't they retain the right to run the endline?

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 838680)

And, if B violates before the TI ends (per Hyland), wouldn't the arrow stay put if it was an AP throw in?

Originally Posted by Scrapper1 (Post 838674)

If I may be so bold, here's the conclusion for NCAA-M games. This email came directly from Art Hyland and the ruling will be included in next year's case book.
...

Originally Posted by Scrapper1 (Post 838674)

...
For NFHS, I would have said that I also had a definitive ruling, but in looking at the PENALTY section of 9-2, I'm not so sure.

NFHS 9-2-2 says that "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."

[Complete off-topic question: why are there hyphens in "from out-of-bounds" but no hyphens in "inbounds or out of bounds"? I would never have noticed it except that I just typed it out :confused: ]

Ok, so prior to today, I would have stated with 100% confidence that a throw-in pass that was caught by a player who was standing out of bounds (out-of-bounds?) would be put back in play at the spot where it was caught. After all, the inbounder did his job. He threw the ball so that it touched a player out of bounds before it went out-of-bounds untouched. The violation must have been committed by the player who caught the ball, and so that's where the ball would be put back in play.

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

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.

Thoughts?

Originally Posted by tref (Post 838651)

Yes, I tried the search function amd I'm still confused.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 838698)

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?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 838720)

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.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 838720)

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.

....

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 838720)

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

Originally Posted by Scrapper1 (Post 838731)

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

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 838730)

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.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 838730)

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

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 (Post 838731)

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

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 838733)

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 (Post 838738)

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.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 838742)

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.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 838743)

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".

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 838744)

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

Originally Posted by Toren (Post 838752)

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.

Originally Posted by bainsey (Post 838754)

I think it's pretty simple.

ANY TIME a player is touching a live ball when he's on or over the boundary line, unless he's executing a throw-in, he has caused the ball to go out of bounds.

If a throw-in touches something out of bounds before it touches a player, it's a throw-in violation.

Now, as in Toren's case, if a throw-in is first touched by someone out of bounds, there's no way time can elapse, as the violation is immediate.