Start the clock....

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Regarding the other issue, if a player catches the ball with a foot on the sideline, is that really a legal touch? Wouldn't the ball come back to the original throw-in spot just like if the ball never touched anyone inbounds before going out?

It's an OOB violation, not a throw-in violation, so the next spot is where the ball was touched.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's an OOB violation, not a throw-in violation, so the next spot is where the ball was touched.

Taking a walk down Memory Lane, this used to be a throwin violation. If inbounder A1's throwin first touched B1, who was out of bounds, possession went to Team B at the spot of the original throwin. You heard right. Team B's possession.

This odd ruling was changed about thirty years ago. It might still confuse some more experienced (how's that for a euphemism) officials.

[Rich1]

If a player'slocation is determined by where he last touched the floor and if that location was OOB, then why would we not have a throw in from the same spot of the last throw in? I am thinking that this would be the same as a ball that was thrown down court and not touched before going out of bounds. In that case we come back to the original thrw in spot so it makes sense to me that we should do the same if the first plkayer to touch it is standing OOB. But, I am open to other opinions since all I am going on is my own "common sense".

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich1

If a player'slocation is determined by where he last touched the floor and if that location was OOB, then why would we not have a throw in from the same spot of the last throw in? I am thinking that this would be the same as a ball that was thrown down court and not touched before going out of bounds. In that case we come back to the original thrw in spot so it makes sense to me that we should do the same if the first plkayer to touch it is standing OOB. But, I am open to other opinions since all I am going on is my own "common sense".

This is the problem with using common sense when there are rules to use instead (not a knock on you Rich, lots of us try to do it).

In the rule book, throw in violations are separate from OOB violations, and the spot of the throw in is different for each.

A throw in violation occurs if the thrower fails to throw the ball so that it touches a player before going out of bounds. If another player catches the ball, but is standing out of bounds, the thrower has done his job. It is not, therefore, a throw in violation.

The player who catches the ball, however, has committed an OOB violation, so the throw in spot is determined accordingly.

[Rich1]

Adam, looking at it that way makes it easier to understand. Since a different player caused to be an OOB violation then we would use that spot. Thanks.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Rich1

Adam, looking at it that way makes it easier to understand. Since a different player caused to be an OOB violation then we would use that spot. Thanks.

And that is also why this action is timed!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

And that is also why this action is timed!

Whether the action should be timed is certainly up for debate, but I fail to see how your reasoning here applies.

For me, if the same action that should cause the clock to start (ball being touched by player) also causes the clock to stop, then it's valid that no time should elapse and I tend to rule accordingly if I'm the official responsible for both.

I wouldn't make a correction either way, however, during a game.