Inbounds Violation (Video)

[Coach Bill]

If he just stepped on the line, but not over it, he would have been fine, right?

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

If he just stepped on the line, but not over it, he would have been fine, right?

Correct. The line is OOB and you are OOB until you are inbounds.

[crosscountry55]

I think it's fair to say that a lot of teams who want to inbound the ball quickly after a made basket....well, they push the envelope in terms of whether they get completely out of bounds or not. Sometimes in a flash they throw it in with one foot in the air while the other is just barely OOB and quickly pivoting. Heck, sometimes that foot never even quite gets OOB. I admit that if there's no pressure, I'm hard-pressed to make this call (game interrupter). If it's more blatant or, as in the video, there is pressure, different story.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I think it's fair to say that a lot of teams who want to inbound the ball quickly after a made basket....well, they push the envelope in terms of whether they get completely out of bounds or not. Sometimes in a flash they throw it in with one foot in the air while the other is just barely OOB and quickly pivoting. Heck, sometimes that foot never even quite gets OOB. I admit that if there's no pressure, I'm hard-pressed to make this call (game interrupter). If it's more blatant or, as in the video, there is pressure, different story.

I assume that your statement refers to the OP. And based upon that assumption you would be incorrect not to call the infraction because there was no pressure by the defense. It is not a "game interrupter". Advantage/Disadvantage does not apply to Violations.

Stepping onto the Court while making a TI is a violation whether or not the defense is applying pressure. It is no different if A2 receives the TI pass from A1 in Team A's Backcourt (and Team B is not pressing), establishes a Pivot Foot and then lifts his Pivot Foot before starting his dribble. A2 committed a Traveling Violation. A1's violation has to be called even though all of the Team B players are in Team A's Frontcourt.

MTD, Sr.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

It is not a "game interrupter". Advantage/Disadvantage does not apply to Violations.

Are you saying that three seconds, which is a violation, is never a game interrupter?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Are you saying that three seconds, which is a violation, is never a game interrupter?

By rule, violations are not subject to advantage/disadvantage considerations like fouls are. In practice, 3 seconds is generally done that way, but not always. Don't apply this to the throw-in violations, though (unless the governor of your section of Rome says otherwise), or really any other violations I can think of.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

By rule, violations are not subject to advantage/disadvantage considerations like fouls are.

"By rule"? I disagree. The following is in the rulebook and makes no distinction between violations and fouls:

THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES

The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a
balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and the
defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and tall player; to
provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting
behavior and fair play; and to emphasize cleverness and skill without unduly
limiting freedom of action of individual or team play on either offense or defense.
Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may
be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not be
permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be
permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not
intended by a rule.

4-27 Incidental Contact does (of course) refer to fouls only, but, surprisingly, doesn't use the term advantage, or disadvantage, anywhere in the wording of the rule, but does allude to those terms.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Are you saying that three seconds, which is a violation, is never a game interrupter?

... or ten seconds to release a free throw (change "game interrupter" (not my favorite phrase) above to "interpreted based on advantage/disadvantage").

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... or ten seconds to release a free throw (change "game interrupter" (not my favorite phrase) above to "interpreted based on advantage/disadvantage").

Ok, so now the advantage/disadvantage philosophy applies to not only three second violations, but also 10 seconds on a FT, too. Where do we draw the line?

I think a throw-in after a made basket when an inch or two of the thrower's foot is over the line and no defender is anywhere even close to the play belongs in this same advantage/disadvantage grouping.