Slight difference in that the play involved a situation where the throw in team just skipped the proper throw in.

Right.

9.2.1B

Note that NCAAW (at least) is different. Readminister the throw-in. AR 165.

I prefer the FED case.

In NCAAW, could a player do this intentionally to avoid a five-second count?

So, would this be legal:

Spot throw-in:

Inbounder dribbles the ball off his leg, it rolls down the sideline out of bounds 5-10 feet ish where a spectator tosses it back to him. He inbounds it. As long as this is accomplished before the 5 seconds count, and he doesn't leave the spot, is this legal?

ha, I was just about to ask that too. I'm thinking violation. that would be interesting.
Also, I suppose this not a violation? Player makes a bounce pass, so it hits out of bounds(in front of the passer) first then inbounds.

When the spectator interferes in the middle of the throw-in the play should be whistled dead and the throw-in readministered.

Wrong on both counts. Now please return to your JV girls game in which players will be awarded FTs when fouled after the act of shooting has ended.

Nevada:

Would you agree that the above play in red is really no different that if A1's inbounds pass to A2 was a bounce pass that after leaving A1's hands touched out-of-bounds before crossing through the boundary line plane and therefore is a throw-in violation by A1?

MTD, Sr.

Fumbles The Throwin ...
 

9.2.1 SITUATION B: A1, out of bounds for a designated spot throw-in: (a)
muffs the pass from the official and it rolls forward; or (b) after receiving the ball
from the official, fumbles the ball and leaves the designated spot to retrieve the
fumble. RULING: In (a), the official should sound the whistle to prevent any violations
and then start the throw-in procedure again. No throw-in violation should
be called in this situation. In (b), a throw-in violation shall be called on A1 for
leaving the designated spot.

Nice citation, but this play doesn't tell us what to do if he doesn't leave the designated spot?

Continue doing what you were doing, which was counting to 5.

Obviously, by stating that we call a violation for A1 leaving the spot, there is a time between the fumble and violation that we are not supposed to anything but continue counting.

A lot better question to advance the conversation would be, "can Team A call a time-out after the fumble?"

No, one is a pass and the other is a fumble. One is a deliberate act while the other is unintentional.

Edit: Made my own thread.

I would grant the TO. I'm not aware of any rule/case that suggests we wouldn't because the thrower is not holding the ball. As I understand it, player control does not exist during a throw in -- just team control. So the rules for a TO with a live ball and the clock running can't apply.

i was asking myself that also. you can grant a timeout when the ball is "at disposal" of a player OR in control of a player. "at disposal" occurs when you bounce or hand him the ball. or place it at spot on resumption of play or after a goal when it is available AND you start counting. it doesn't require possession of the ball. i would allow the timeout if ball rolls away. we know in reality that the player will likely chase after it as soon as he loses it but i think he should get the TO if he knew to ask for it without leaving the designated spot.

We've danced around this one for a while but the ruling is not clear in the thread. I'm curious because it happened to me in a camp game two summers ago; I wasn't sure, but none of the clinicians brought it up.

A1's throw-in bounce pass was roughly parallel to the sideline and bounced out of bounds before A2 grabbed it downstream on the inbounds side of the plane. Honestly, I ruled violation because it didn't "look" right. I later checked the rulebook and I think I was right because the throw-in wasn't released "directly" into the court. But does this "directly" clause infer that the ball cannot touch out of bounds on the way in? I'm not sure. Or is there a different interpretation that I'm not considering?

Yes, that's what "directly" means in this case.