"Long Jump" on a Throw In?
 

Thrower-inner A1 backs up and, running toward the endline, jumps across the endline over the court and releases a throw-in pass prior to landing on the floor inbounds.

On a designated spot throw-in the illegality of this "long jumper" seems clear because of 7-6-3 ("...shall not leave the designated throw-in spot until the ball has been released on a throw-in pass") and 4-42-6 NOTE ("...must keep one foot on or over the spot until the ball is released). The throw-in spot exists only in out of bounds area, according to 4-42-2 ("...a method of putting the ball in play from out of bounds").

QUESTION: What rulebook citation, if any, exists that prohibits "long jumper" A1 from doing this on a throw-in after a made or awarded basket, when the designated throw-in spot is not relevant?

No violation. He was OOB when he released the ball. (9-2-10 Note)

The thrower has no depth limitation on a throw-in. As long as he stays within the width of designated spot, your scenario is not illegal.

I appreciate your reference to 9-2-10 Note. That seems to be a relevant citation.
However, your second point is not applicable because in the question the designated spot does not prevail--it's after a made or awarded basket when there is not designated throw-in spot.

You're right. My take would be as long as he's along the end line, nothing illegal.

Confucius Says ...
 

You are where you were until you get where you're going.

The post did point out that you were wrong in your assumption that it was illegal on a designated spot throw-in.

As for a throw-in after a made basket, there is no restriction on the throw-in breaking the plane on a throw-in. So it doesn't matter whether ir is a spot throw-in or after a made basket. As long as they release the throw before they touch inbounds.

I think our answer is in the note at the end of Rule 9.2.10...

"The thrower may penetrate the plane provided he/she does not touch the inbounds area or a player inbounds before the ball is released on the throw-in pass."

Since said thrower last touched the spot-throw area, therefore is technically still there, then the play is legal.

However, if the thrower touches a player defending the throw-in before releasing the ball, it's illegal.

This Still Seems to be a Puzzler, Methinks
 

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.

The spot is out of bounds.

The correct RULING for the situation in the OP is that it is a Throw-in Violation. Why? The governing rules citations are NFHS R4-S42-A6 Note and R7-S6-A3. NFHS R4-S42-A2 and R9-S2-A10 are not relevant to this play. Furthermore, it would be a Throw-in Violation regardless whether it was a Designated Spot Throw-in or a Throw-in anywhere along the End Line after a score.

MTD, Sr.

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.

To Coin a Phrase for Your 2 Cents Worth
 

By your assessment of relevant rules, would you deem it correct to say that on a throw-in the thrower must "have something out and nothing in", to use a phrase? I'd like to be able to say that. But I'm not quite there yet.......

Just quote the rule. Something on or over the spot and the spot is out of bounds.

Throwin Plane ...
 

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.

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.

Freddy:

I would prefer to use the following phrase to describe the violation: "Everything out and nothing in or over the throw-in spot."


I would also like to add:

1) There are two types of throw-in spots and they are defined by the width of the spot: a) Designated Throw-in Spot (three feet wide). b) A throw-in after a successful FG, FT, or awarded points (the width of the basketball court: behind the End Line between the Side Lines). The depth of both (a) and (b) are the same.

2) The throw-in rules apply equally to both (a) and (b).

3) NFHS R4-S46-A2 NOTE is the governing rule in either (a) or (b).

MTD, Sr.

9-2-10 Note can be read as allowing the player to jump over the court, as long as the ball is released before the court (or anyone on the court) is touched.

Bob:

I have to disagree. I do not remember when the rule was changed in both NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's but there was a time when it was a throw-in violation for the thrower to hold the ball through boundary line plane. The rule was written such that of the thrower broke the boundary line plane with the ball while releasing the pass it was a throw-in violation. The NOTE lends itself to an "old" rule and how the "new" rule pertains to the thrower-in's opponent. R4-S42-A6 NOTE still is the governing rule. And it also applies in both NCAA Men's and Women's.

MTD, Sr.

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.

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. :eek:

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.

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

9.2.5 SITUATION B: A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in and is being
guarded by B1. Before releasing the ball, A1 loses his/her balance, reaches out
and puts his/her hand on B1 (who is inbounds) in an effort to regain his/her balance.
RULING: Throw-in violation by A1. A1 is required to remain out of bounds
until releasing the throw-in pass. When A1 touches an inbounds player, he/she
has inbound status. However, if the contact on B1 is illegal, a personal foul shall
be called. (9-2-10 Note)

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

NOTE: The thrower may penetrate the plane provided he/she does not touch the inbounds
area or a player inbounds before the ball is released on the throw-in pass. The opponent
in this situation may legally touch or grasp the ball.

Correct, it could. However the NOTE after 4-42-6 requires that, "The thrower must keep one foot on our over the spot until the ball is released. " Therefore is it correct that, at least with a designated spot throw in, the long jumper is not complying and is illegal?
What seems interesting is that the same doesn't seem to prevail for a throw in after a made our awarded basket where there is no designated spot.

I think this is a stretch, Camron. How do you interpret the thrower pushing the defender as an intentional foul on the defender? The defender did not contact the thrower. The opposite happened.

I think you mean TC foul :D

It all depends on whether that is really meant to stop at the boundary line, or was meant just for lateral movement.

One interp says, " he or she may move laterally if at least one foot is kept on or over the designated area. " so that could be read as the later. But, the same interp says "jump vertically" so that could be read as NOT allowing a jump over the court.

It has been discussed here in the past, and I thought there was a defining case or interp, but I can't find it.

In spirit, I agree. But, as written, the rule defines it as an intentional foul for a defender to contact a thrower. It doesn't distinguish between who causes the contact. Just that their is contact. I think it is a stupid rule.

I think "contact" in this case is an action verb -- the defense must act to cause contact.

It does not say "or is contacted by the inbounder".

And, the relevant case play has it as either a throw-in violation or a foul on the offense -- but not as an intentional foul on the defense.

That case play predated the change to making contact with the thrower an IF...who knows if they considered it when they changed the rule for no good reason.

Even if you're right (and I think you likely are), it is still a dumb rule. If B1 can legally play the ball when it is held beyond the throwin plane, they should not , as long as the action is entirely on the inbounds side of the line, be liable for an IF if they miss the ball and hit the throwers arm instead. There is nothing about that play that needs to be an IF.

Reaching through the line and fouling the thrower being ruled and IF, as has always been the case, was sufficient.

I agree with that.