That's what I was going to say. IW and ball should go back to A.

We're not taking a test here.

another hypothetical
 

Say the possession arrow points to B, and A1 throws a long pass to a streaking A2 for an easy lay-up. But, before A2 can get a hand on the ball, we have an IW.

Anyone up for giving the ball to B?

Whether team control during a TI applies or not, an IW can be extremely unfair to one team or the other.

Throw-in did not end prior to IW, so POI is throw-in.

Why would we give the ball to B? In your scenario we've already screwed up by most likely taking two points away from Team A on the IW. Now we'd be compounding the error by taking the ball away from Team A through the AP arrow. You think that's fair? At that point just finish the play by immediately calling a T on Team A's coach because that's the next thing that's going to happen.

Don't make a screw-up worse by making stuff up, especially stuff that isn't supported by rule.

One more try...
 

Maybe I don't understand all of this thread. Help me out.

Say the possession arrow points to B, and A1 throws a long pass to a streaking A2 for an easy lay-up. A2 touches, but has not yet controlled the ball when an IW happens.

What is the call then?

TI has ended. If team control during TI applies only for the purpose of team control fouls, there is no team control in bounds yet.

And this is where the debate lies. For me, until the NFHS clarifies this particular situation, I'm going with the written rule. By rule, TC continues after the throw in. The NFHS has made it clear they don't want it applying to BC violations, but that's an exception to the rule.

Put me in the camp that TC applies until the defending team gains possession and that there is a special exception that only allows BC violations after PC has been gained inbounds.

This is deeper than just the debate about team control. In the OP, assuming the ball hit the bottom of the board, this should have been nothing, but was called a violation. But now what to do if this incorrect whistle sounds a split second before the ball is grabbed out of the air by team B? I'm gonna let the incorrectly called violation stand rather than change it to an accidental whistle and give the ball back to A.

there's a play in the NCAAW case book. I think it's also in the NCAAM book. A1 jumps from inbouds, grabs the ball and is about to land out of bounds. A1 requests a TO, and the official blows the whistle. (For those who don't know, in NCAA, the TO should NOT be granted in this case).

Ruling: IW, give the ball back to A, even though the "logical and obvious" conclusion of the play if there was no whistle would be a violation on A and the ball to B.

I don't see that as much different from the IW when B is about to grab the ball after it hits the bottom of the backboard, or any of the other plays that have been presented here to show why the IW rule might be "unfair."

This is never a good philosophy. When officials start making judgments as to what is fair/not fair and using that as the basis for the calls they make, only bad things can happen.

Simple Arithmetic ???
 

Agree. When I'm put into a position where I have to make another wrong to make the original wrong a right, I don't. I just suck it up and go with the rulebook. That way I only have to make one apology to a coach, athletic director, player, assignment commissioner, partner, etc., not two apologies.

Sometimes life isn't fair, and sometimes the rules of basketball aren't fair either.

And this is why the part is in front of the book about intent and purpose of the rules and a team not being given an advantage which is not intended by a rule. I don't believe it was intended to give the ball back to the wrong team because of an official's mistake. Sometimes it can't be helped. In this case it can.

Using Everything At Our Disposal ...
 

Good point, playing the old "intent and purpose" card.

But this is the part that concerned me, and maybe I was reading it wrong:

I'm not unilaterally going to change the original violation call. I am going to get together with my partner, and the coaches, use 2-3, and the "intent and purpose of the rules", to come up with a correct decision, in line with all the rules in the rulebook, including the one that just another ref pointed out. I'm not going to make a second mistake, any followup to the first mistake will be by the book, the entire book, and nothing but the book, so help me God.

If possible, I always go with the rule book. If that means an inadvertent whistle, then so be it. By doing so I have solid reasons for my decision. By assuming things, I'm leaving myself open for more questions from coaches, observers, etc.

Here's what I say..

"I'm sorry, I made a mistake. By rule, this is how things go from there. I know it's not ideal, but it's the way things have to go."

Whoever I say that to many not be happy, but they can't argue against the rule book. At least not to me.