"Long Jump" on a Throw In?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I'm happy to call the long-jumper "legal" on a designated spot throw-in, except for this one requirement, expressed in two places, that sticks in my mind:
"The thrower must keep one foot on or over the spot until the ball is released" (4-42-6 NOTE). And, "The thrower shall not leave the designated throw-in spot until the ball has been released on a throw-in pass" (7-6-3 and 9-2-1). The phrase "You are where you were 'til you get where you're going" seems not to apply when the above requirement restricts it, with the designated spot, of course, not extending past the boundary line.
The NOTE after 9-2-10 ("The thrower may penetrate the plane provided he/she doesn not touch the inbounds area..." doesn't, I'm thinking, dismiss the above requirement, either.
Agree?

Important to me cuz "Throw-Ins" is the topic of our next pre-season rules meeting.

Thanx for your responses, the ones that dwell on what's in the book.

Does the definition of the designated spot say that the thrower can not break the plane? Don't have my books with me, but if I remember correctly, the designated spot "definition" has no depth limitations - simply width limitations.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Does the definition of the designated spot say that the thrower can not break the plane? Don't have my books with me, but if I remember correctly, the designated spot "definition" has no depth limitations - simply width limitations.

The spot is out of bounds.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Does the definition of the designated spot say that the thrower can not break the plane? Don't have my books with me, but if I remember correctly, the designated spot "definition" has no depth limitations - simply width limitations.

I believe the above phrase is only saying that, while the width is specifically 3', there is no specific number of feet away from the boundary where the spot is limited. But, the spot IS limited in that directly, just not by a number of feet. It is limited by a wall/seats/bleachers/etc.

I believe the spot is defined to be OOB.

Thus, a player jumping over the inbounds area will have left the spot if neither foot is still over the OOB spot.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... a player jumping over the inbounds area will have left the spot of neither foot is still over the OOB spot.

Sounds good, but I'm having some trouble (can't really put my finger on it, it's just a bad feeling) giving my full agreement.

In the words of the great, esteemed Forum member, Freddy ...

Originally Posted by Freddy

But I'm not quite there yet.......

I guess that I need a little push.

This is a very interesting thread. I hope that we eventually get a definitive answer.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Sounds good, but I'm having some trouble (can't really put my finger on it, it's just a bad feeling) giving my full agreement.

In the words of the great, esteemed Forum member, Freddy ...



I guess that I need a little push.

This is a very interesting thread. I hope that we eventually get a definitive answer.

It appears that this element of a throw-in is an omission in the verbiage, that allows a loophole. That is, since there is technically no "spot", when a thrower has the opportunity to run the endline, then he/she can't be penalized for "one foot not being on or over the 'spot' when the ball is released."
Logic may seem to be that "one foot must still be on or over the oob area behind the endline, when the ball is released," but the lack of such a statement in the rule can be the basis for a non-violation in such a case, and the genesis of this thread.

[JugglingReferee]

Allowing this isn't desirable to the game. It'll be successful only a minute percentage of the time, with little to gain and more to lose.

And I do believe it violates the on or over stipulation. I say it's a violation.

On a play with the end line, the term spot infers the entire end line, imho.

[Jesse James]

This thread gives me two more things to see before I die

1) Seeing a defender draw a PC foul on the inbounder

2) Watching the inbounder launch himself toward the hoop, attempt a shot (I know it's not a try, and can't score, but the defense won't) and have the defender called for an intentional foul for contacting the inbounder.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jesse James

This thread gives me two more things to see before I die

1) Seeing a defender draw a PC foul on the inbounder

2) Watching the inbounder launch himself toward the hoop, attempt a shot (I know it's not a try, and can't score, but the defense won't) and have the defender called for an intentional foul for contacting the inbounder.

And THAT is precisely why the change to the inbounder/intentional rule is idiotic. They should have left it as an intentional foul to contact the thrower across the plane, not just contacting the inbounder. If the inbounder wants to extend any part of their body across the line, they should loose the protection of being a thrower if fouled on those parts.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Jesse James

This thread gives me two more things to see before I die

1) Seeing a defender draw a PC foul on the inbounder

2) Watching the inbounder launch himself toward the hoop, attempt a shot (I know it's not a try, and can't score, but the defense won't) and have the defender called for an intentional foul for contacting the inbounder.

Wouldn't #1 be impossible? I would have a violation for contacting a defender inbounds at the first touch with the defender. So before a PC would occur, the ball would be dead and other contact would be ignored unless intentional or flagrant. Am I missing something?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

Wouldn't #1 be impossible? I would have a violation for contacting a defender inbounds at the first touch with the defender. So before a PC would occur, the ball would be dead and other contact would be ignored unless intentional or flagrant. Am I missing something?

Yet we have another rule that says it is an intentional foul to CONTACT the thrower regardless of where the contact is made.

So, you could have a foul, caused by the thrower that meets the definition of a PC (perhaps the thrower shoves the defender away), but is also a throwin violation and also an intentional foul. All by rule.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

Wouldn't #1 be impossible? I would have a violation for contacting a defender inbounds at the first touch with the defender. So before a PC would occur, the ball would be dead and other contact would be ignored unless intentional or flagrant. Am I missing something?

Case 9.2.5B indicates that the official needs to judge whether it's a violation or a foul.

It doesn't help answer the "PC" question because it just says that it's a Personal foul -- it doesn't specify PC or (just) common or I or F.

Originally Posted by Jesse James

This thread gives me two more things to see before I die

1) Seeing a defender draw a PC foul on the inbounder

I think you mean TC foul