Team control, throw-in, IW

[Rich]

Team A's throw-in hits the underside of the basket. An official blows an IW.

Administer the aftermath.

[APG]

POI is the throw-in...readminster.

[tjones1]

Throw-in never ended as it was not legally touched.

Team A's ball for the throw-in.

[Raymond]

I either agree with either APG or tjones1, depending on whom I like better today.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Throw-in never ended and it was not legally touched.
Team A's ball for the throw-in.

Does that matter?

[zm1283]

On this note, I was working a scrimmage last Friday night. I was the Lead and administering the throw-in in the frontcourt on the endline. The thrower went to throw the ball to a teammate and it hit the bottom (From what I could tell) of the backboard and came down in bounds on the court, where one of the players on the court grabbed it. I wasn't going call a violation because it looked like it came straight down, leading me to believe that it hit the bottom of the backboard and not the back. It also landed in bounds. My partner comes in after a brief delay and says that it was a violation. At the next break I asked him about it and he said that when it hit, it angled back toward the endline so it must have hit the back of the backboard. I told him that it landed in bounds and from my angle it went straight down so I would have left it alone. We agreed to disagree and went on.

I remember people talking about this on here before. If it doesn't come straight down after hitting the backboard do you guys always assume it hit the back?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by zm1283

I remember people talking about this on here before. If it doesn't come straight down after hitting the backboard do you guys always assume it hit the back?

If it goes back, it hit the back.

Whether it went back is, of course, judgment.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If it goes back, it hit the back.

Whether it went back is, of course, judgment.

Is the corner of the padding on the bottom of the backboard considered the back?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by zm1283

On this note, I was working a scrimmage last Friday night. I was the Lead and administering the throw-in in the frontcourt on the endline. The thrower went to throw the ball to a teammate and it hit the bottom (From what I could tell) of the backboard and came down in bounds on the court, where one of the players on the court grabbed it. I wasn't going call a violation because it looked like it came straight down, leading me to believe that it hit the bottom of the backboard and not the back. It also landed in bounds. My partner comes in after a brief delay and says that it was a violation. At the next break I asked him about it and he said that when it hit, it angled back toward the endline so it must have hit the back of the backboard. I told him that it landed in bounds and from my angle it went straight down so I would have left it alone. We agreed to disagree and went on.

I remember people talking about this on here before. If it doesn't come straight down after hitting the backboard do you guys always assume it hit the back?

No way I'm coming in to get this from T, regardless of what I saw. (unless it went straight back)

[rbruno]

I believe we still have a violation because by hitting even the bottom of the backboard , which is inbounds...it did not go 'directly" onto the court.

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by zm1283

On this note, I was working a scrimmage last Friday night. I was the Lead and administering the throw-in in the frontcourt on the endline. The thrower went to throw the ball to a teammate and it hit the bottom (From what I could tell) of the backboard and came down in bounds on the court, where one of the players on the court grabbed it. I wasn't going call a violation because it looked like it came straight down, leading me to believe that it hit the bottom of the backboard and not the back. It also landed in bounds. My partner comes in after a brief delay and says that it was a violation. At the next break I asked him about it and he said that when it hit, it angled back toward the endline so it must have hit the back of the backboard. I told him that it landed in bounds and from my angle it went straight down so I would have left it alone. We agreed to disagree and went on.

I remember people talking about this on here before. If it doesn't come straight down after hitting the backboard do you guys always assume it hit the back?

Were you working w/Ed HighTower?

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Does that matter?

Fixed it!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Fixed it!

Still doesn't matter. Even in the throw-in had ended, you'd still give the ball to A (although the spot might now be different from the original spot). A still has team control.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Still doesn't matter. Even in the throw-in had ended, you'd still give the ball to A (although the spot might now be different from the original spot). A still has team control.

Team control on a throw-in, huh? Yeah, I'm a little slow this morning.

I would of been right two years ago though. lol

Thanks, Bob.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Still doesn't matter. Even in the throw-in had ended, you'd still give the ball to A (although the spot might now be different from the original spot). A still has team control.

I'm not sure I understand. Doesn't team control only apply if there is a foul by the throw-in team? My thinking is if the IW occurred after the throw-in hit the bottom edge and before the ball was legally touched then the POI would be a throw-in for Team A not on the basis of team control; but as tjones suggested: the throw-in had not ended. Now, if the ball hits the bottom edge > touches or is touched by a player (throw-in ends) > the IW occurs, POI > go to the AP? Similar to if an IW whistle occurs when a try is in flight > the try is unsuccessful (the try ends) > go to the AP. Help on this would be appreciated.