Throw In

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Agree...but some say you can't go by intent ...

Some just know that determining intent is called judgment.

[Triad zebra]

The intent in the OP is a throw in that came back to A1. On the very next trip down the floor B1 INTENTIONALLY bounces ball off the back board and the ball rebounds directly to him. Someone's got a lot of explaining to do if you call one a violation and the other nothing.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Triad zebra

The intent in the OP is a throw in that came back to A1. On the very next trip down the floor B1 INTENTIONALLY bounces ball off the back board and the ball rebounds directly to him. Someone's got a lot of explaining to do if you call one a violation and the other nothing.

Real world application, you throw the ball four feet into the court, it will be judged you released the ball for the throw-in. As such, this is going to be called a violation every time (save for the time this play may surprise the calling official).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Some just know that determining intent is called judgment.

And judgement is worthless if you don't know the underlying rules applicable to the action being judged.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And judgement is worthless if you don't know the underlying rules applicable to the action being judged.

Those people should brush up on rules knowledge and comprehension. It's only difficult for those people who ignore words such as "deems", "provided", "if", "judges", and "judgment" or who recite rules by adding words that aren't there.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Those people should brush up on rules knowledge and comprehension. It's only difficult for those people who ignore words such as "deems", "provided", "if", "judges", and "judgment" or who recite rules by adding words that aren't there.

Glad you finally agree with me.

[LRZ]

Originally Posted by Adam

On an end line throw in, we have to determine the intent of the throw. 99% of the time, or more, the intent is obvious. This is one of those times. The intent was to throw the ball onto the court, thus making it a throw in pass. Once that throw in pass touches OOB before touching a player, it is a violation for having a TI pass go OOB before touching a player.

I don't see why we would judge intent, even in 1% of the cases. We place the ball at the disposal of the thrower, suggesting the player's role at that point. But what else is he to do with the ball? Why else would the player release the ball except to inbound it? Setting aside the issue of intent, which I'd consider irrelevant here, I agree with the second part of this analysis: the ball touched OOB before being touched by another player.

[bballref3966]

Why is there even a discussion about intent? The rule and case books pretty blatantly support that throwing the ball off an object out of bounds before it touches an inbounds player (not including dribbling on the floor) is a violation—there's no basis in the rule for judging intent. If it happens, it's a violation. Am I oversimplifying this?