Team control, throw-in, IW

[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.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by 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.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by 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.

BNR's scenario includes the ball having been thrown "directly onto the court" (it mentions that the ball was deflected by B), thus, no violation.
It seems to me, that there are two choices . . . POI may be considered the throw-in by A, and thus we re-do the throw-in,
or, we treat the scenario as the throw-in having been completed, (when the ball was touched by B) but with no team control having been established on the court, we may go to an AP throw-in.
Presently, I favor the latter. But I'm willing to consider other opinions.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

BNR's scenario includes the ball having been thrown "directly onto the court" (it mentions that the ball was deflected by B), thus, no violation.
It seems to me, that there are two choices . . . POI may be considered the throw-in by A, and thus we re-do the throw-in,
or, we treat the scenario as the throw-in having been completed, (when the ball was touched by B) but with no team control having been established on the court, we may go to an AP throw-in.
Presently, I favor the latter. But I'm willing to consider other opinions.

If it hits the bottom of the backboard and we have an IW, it goes back to the AP throw in. The throw in has not been completed, and this isn't a violation. The arrow will change when the throw in has ended.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by OKREF

If it hits the bottom of the backboard and we have an IW, it goes back to the AP throw in. The throw in has not been completed, and this isn't a violation. The arrow will change when the throw in has ended.

I agree, if the ball went directly from thrower-in A to the bottom of the backboard, but the scenario posed by BNR has the ball being deflected by B, and then hitting the bottom of the backboard. I understand that the throw-in ended when the ball was "deflected by B."

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

I agree, if the ball went directly from thrower-in A to the bottom of the backboard, but the scenario posed by BNR has the ball being deflected by B, and then hitting the bottom of the backboard. I understand that the throw-in ended when the ball was "deflected by B."

I didn't catch his scenario. If the throw in ended, which it does when it is legally touched by B, the arrow changes then, and there is an IW and no team control exists then you go to the AP, which would be team B ball.

[APG]

Originally Posted by 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.

7.1.2 Situation A

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by 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.

"A ball which touches the front faces or edges of the backboard is treated the same as touching the floor inbounds."