Celtics-Cavaliers game 4

[Raymond]

Sooo, just b/c it is so slow around here. A1 scores a basket and his momentum carries him OOB. While still OOB A1 then:

1) reaches back inbounds and touches a pass that has already been released by B1

2) reaches back inbounds and touches the ball while B1 has extended the ball completely inbounds without yet releasing the pass.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Sooo, just b/c it is so slow around here. A1 scores a basket and his momentum carries him OOB. While still OOB A1 then:

1) reaches back inbounds and touches a pass that has already been released by B1

2) reaches back inbounds and touches the ball while B1 has extended the ball completely inbounds without yet releasing the pass.

Normally, A1 would be excused for being OOB in such a play but when A1 takes action to defend the throwin, they lose that benefit.

#1...OOB violation on A1.

#2...throwin violation on A1 for being across the boundary line before the ball is released on the throwin. But not a T for contacting the ball since the ball was on the inbounds side of the line.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Sooo, just b/c it is so slow around here. A1 scores a basket and his momentum carries him OOB. While still OOB A1 then:

1) reaches back inbounds and touches a pass that has already been released by B1

2) reaches back inbounds and touches the ball while B1 has extended the ball completely inbounds without yet releasing the pass.

OOB violation on both. Unlike Camron I don't think the plane violation would apply in #2.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

OOB violation on both. Unlike Camron I don't think the plane violation would apply in #2.

Rule 7. Section 6. ART. 4 . . . The opponent(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary plane until the ball has been released on a throw-in pass. See 9-2-10 Penalty.

Was the ball released yet? Did the player have any part of their person through the boundary plane? (note that the rule doesn't talk about reaching through, just about being through).

Taken literally, this rule could be read to say that it is a violation if A1 is just OOB in the cases presented. However, we know that really isn't the intent...B1 can't get a DOG violation against A by starting the throwin so quick after A1's made basket that A1 might still be OOB due to momentum. A1 gets a pass in those cases. However, when A1 starts defending the throwin, A1 is now subject to the throwin rules.

[potato]

OOB aside.

The defender did touch the ball before the ball was released from the player, so is that not a violation?

Plus he grabbed the player, is that not a violation?

and doing both while out of bounds, surely if it's not a violation it'd still be a turnover.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Was the ball released yet? Did the player have any part of their person through the boundary plane? (note that the rule doesn't talk about reaching through, just about being through).

Taken literally, this rule could be read to say that it is a violation if A1 is just OOB in the cases presented. However, we know that really isn't the intent...B1 can't get a DOG violation against A by starting the throwin so quick after A1's made basket that A1 might still be OOB due to momentum. A1 gets a pass in those cases. However, when A1 starts defending the throwin, A1 is now subject to the throwin rules.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by potato

OOB aside.

The defender did touch the ball before the ball was released from the player, so is that not a violation?

Plus he grabbed the player, is that not a violation?

and doing both while out of bounds, surely if it's not a violation it'd still be a turnover.

The other team had the ball, so it can't be a turnover.

If the thrower-in extends the ball inbounds over the boundary plain, it is legal for the defense to touch the ball.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by potato

OOB aside.

The defender did touch the ball before the ball was released from the player, so is that not a violation?

No. BNR already addressed this above.

Originally Posted by potato

Plus he grabbed the player, is that not a violation?

I don't see any mention of that in the situation. If that were to occur, it would be an intentional foul, not a violation.