What do you have?

[bob jenkins]

Violation as soon as you (the official) recognize that the pass to B2 was intended to be a "throw in"

[JugglingReferee]

I've got a count as soon as B1 looks for someone, and a violation as soon as B2 takes off down the court.

Unless I've been briefed ahead of time with this situation, then I'm likely to rule a violation. And then when I am briefed, I would suggest a proper way to burn time from the game in this situation.

[flsh224]

Well, I guess I kicked it. I started the 5 count as soon as B1 had the ball at his disposal and continued it after he gave it to B2. I was at 4 when B2 was fouled. B2 was dribbling along the end line when fouled. My interpretation was that Team B had 5 seconds to properly inbound the ball and until the 5 seconds were up or I knew they had no chance of properly inbounding it, they hadn't advanced it up the court.

My partner after the game thought I should have called a violation. I have been unable to find it in the rule or case book to back up calling the violation.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by flsh224

Well, I guess I kicked it. I started the 5 count as soon as B1 had the ball at his disposal and continued it after he gave it to B2. I was at 4 when B2 was fouled. B2 was dribbling along the end line when fouled. My interpretation was that Team B had 5 seconds to properly inbound the ball and until the 5 seconds were up or I knew they had no chance of properly inbounding it, they hadn't advanced it up the court.

My partner after the game thought I should have called a violation. I have been unable to find it in the rule or case book to back up calling the violation.

This play caused quite a long discussion here many years ago. The options were (a) immediate violation; (b) wait 5 seconds; or (c) stop the clock and bring them back to do it right

The NFHS issued an interp (check the Past Interp Archive) saying (a) was the correct response.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

(c) stop the clock and bring them back to do it right.

This is my younger kids, Rec 11U and below answer. Else, I have a violation.

[legend]

Originally Posted by grunewar

This is my younger kids, Rec 11U and below answer. Else, I have a violation.

I agree anything jr. hi and below I blow the whistle and "help them out" 99% of coaches understand your position on this type of play. The other 1% will just have to deal with it. They are young players learing the game.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by legend

I agree anything jr. hi and below I blow the whistle and "help them out" 99% of coaches understand your position on this type of play. The other 1% will just have to deal with it. They are young players learing the game.

My cut off would be middle school also, but my answer would be to enforce the rule in 90% of my middle school games.

[JugglingReferee]

Team A players do not need to be aware if B is playing legally, and since no legal throw-in has taken place, B's actions only confuse A, which I don't believe is fair to A. A TI violation makes sense.

In the reverse case, when A scores and is losing, and knocks the ball away, we can go straight to the T. In that case, B never had a chance to properly play basketball. In your case, B did have a chance to properly play basketball, so I less inclined to kill the play and let them inbound again with a stopped clock. The only option left is a TI violation or a T. This T would be too much, imho.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

In the reverse case, when A scores and is winning, and knocks the ball away, we can go straight to the T.

Before, or after, a delay of game warning.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Before, or after, a delay of game warning.

No DoG warning needed under 10-3-5a.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

No DoG warning needed under 10-3-5a.

I wouldn't apply 10-3-5a to a situation covered by 10-2-5e, which requires a DOG warning.

[PG_Ref]

Caseplay 9.2.2 SITUATION C:

A1 scores a basket. After the ball goes through the net, B1 grabs it and makes a move toward the end line as though preparing to make a throw-in. However, B1 never legally steps out of bounds, both feet remain inbounds. B1 immediately passes the ball up the court to a fast-breaking teammate, who scores a basket.

RULING: Cancel Team B's goal, throw-in violation on B1. The ball was at B1's disposal after the made basket to make a throw-in. B1 must be out of bounds to make a legal throw-in. (7-4-3; 7-5-7)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Team A players do not need to be aware if B is playing legally, and since no legal throw-in has taken place, B's actions only confuse A, which I don't believe is fair to A. A TI violation makes sense.

In the reverse case, when A scores and is winning, and knocks the ball away, we can go straight to the T. In that case, B never had a chance to properly play basketball. In your case, B did have a chance to properly play basketball, so I less inclined to kill the play and let them inbound again with a stopped clock. The only option left is a TI violation or a T. This T would be too much, imho.

If A scores and is winning, the case play does not apply. Kill the clock, issue the warning, and move on. A is not benefiting, as the stopped clock negates whatever advantage their player thought he would get.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Adam

If A scores and is winning, the case play does not apply. Kill the clock, issue the warning, and move on. A is not benefiting, as the stopped clock negates whatever advantage their player thought he would get.

Fixed. Tx.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by flsh224

Well, I guess I kicked it. I started the 5 count as soon as B1 had the ball at his disposal and continued it after he gave it to B2. I was at 4 when B2 was fouled. B2 was dribbling along the end line when fouled. My interpretation was that Team B had 5 seconds to properly inbound the ball and until the 5 seconds were up or I knew they had no chance of properly inbounding it, they hadn't advanced it up the court.

My partner after the game thought I should have called a violation. I have been unable to find it in the rule or case book to back up calling the violation.

Hmmm. Did you call it an intentional foul for contact with the thrower during a throw-in?