Throw-in

[mutantducky]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

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?

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

Originally Posted by mutantducky

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.

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

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?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

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

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

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.

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?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

We've danced around this one for a while but the ruling is not clear in the thread.

The ruling should be clear -- it's a violation if the throw-in pass first hits out of bounds.

I do find it interesting that the ruling on the FT (immediate violation) is different from the ruling on a throw-in (wait until 5 or a violation). Many of the same options (specifically a TO) are, in theory, available to the team.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The ruling should be clear -- it's a violation if the throw-in pass first hits out of bounds.

I do find it interesting that the ruling on the FT (immediate violation) is different from the ruling on a throw-in (wait until 5 or a violation). Many of the same options (specifically a TO) are, in theory, available to the team.

thinking out loud again--which is always dangerous… the free throw--immediate violation play, i think, cites for support, the provision where free thrower can't step into lane before ball hits rim. -- if you hand me the ball at free throw line i can dribble it in the lane obviously. if i fumble it and it bounces to the right of me, into the lane, BUT i can still reach it while inside the semicircle before anyone else touches it have i violated? as i said, i think, the immediate violation play cites the part of the rule where free thrower can't go into the lane before it hits rim. maybe that play assumes the fumble of the ball goes into the lane clearly out of my reach? violation when that happens.

whether i dribble or fumble--if I'm staying in my semicircle to get ball back i should be ok…?

on the throw in play it says player has the ball and then fumbles it and leaves the spot to retrieve it. violation for that clearly. we are talking about still counting to 5 if he stays in the designated spot. perhaps when the ball bounces far enough away that it clearly can't be retrieved by the thrower in with a foot over the designated spot a violation should be called? that would be a way to reconcile the two plays.
i havnt thought it through so there may be holes in that thought.