Where is the spot?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

The throw-in spot should have been where A2 touched the ball since that was the closest spot to where the violation - ball contacting a player OOB - took place.

100% correct, but I've observed very competent, very veteran, officials handling this like a throwin that goes untouched out of bounds, and thus, incorrectly put the ball back in play at the original throwin spot. There may have been a rule, or interpretation, from thirty-five years ago, that drives this myth.

Hey Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.: Is this worth a trip up to your attic library?

[luvhoops]

Where would it be when a violation takes place while the ball is in the air?

Ex. Ball in backcourt (BC) of Team A, officials count (NFHS) is at 9, A1 with ball deep in BC, throws a 70-foot pass from BC towards frontcourt (FC). Official's count reaches 10 while ball is in air 50 feet from where A1 threw it. Where would spot of inbound be?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by luvhoops

Where would it be when a violation takes place while the ball is in the air?

Ex. Ball in backcourt (BC) of Team A, officials count (NFHS) is at 9, A1 with ball deep in BC, throws a 70-foot pass from BC towards frontcourt (FC). Official's count reaches 10 while ball is in air 50 feet from where A1 threw it. Where would spot of inbound be?

How many times does this violation go uncalled?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by luvhoops

Where would it be when a violation takes place while the ball is in the air?

Ex. Ball in backcourt (BC) of Team A, officials count (NFHS) is at 9, A1 with ball deep in BC, throws a 70-foot pass from BC towards frontcourt (FC). Official's count reaches 10 while ball is in air 50 feet from where A1 threw it. Where would spot of inbound be?

What does the definition of Ball Location tell you?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

The throw-in spot should have been where A2 touched the ball since that was the closest spot to where the violation - ball contacting a player OOB - took place.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

100% correct, but I've observed very competent, very veteran, officials handling this like a throwin that goes untouched out of bounds, and thus, incorrectly put the ball back in play at the original throwin spot. There may have been a rule, or interpretation, from thirty-five years ago, that drives this myth.

Hey Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.: Is this worth a trip up to your attic library?

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

What does the definition of Ball Location tell you?

Billy and Bob (sounds like a redneck morning drive time radio team, ):

I am not going to climb up into the attic but, I remember what Bob says is true about a Casebook Play during everybody's favorite, , NFHS Basketball Rules Editor, Mary Struckhoff, time on the job.

But I also want to say that the Casebook Play was the result of (a) a minor rule change that was very quickly repealed, or (b) the Casebook Play, itself, was repealed. Either way, it did not last very long thank goodness, because JetMan's correct response is how it has been done and it had been done in NBCUSC, NFHS, NCAA Men's/Women's, NAGWS, and FIBA, for as long as I have been officiating and playing as well.

MTD, Sr.

[luvhoops]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

What does the definition of Ball Location tell you?

It tells me "A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court."

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by luvhoops

It tells me "A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court."

And, since the subsequent throw in for this violation goes to the "ball location" ...

[BillyMac]

Slightly of topic, but many, many, years ago, if A1 made a throwin that first touched B2, who was out of bounds, the NFHS interpreted this situation as a throwin violation (for having not thrown the ball directly into the court) on A1, and awarded the ball to Team B for a throwin at the original spot.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Slightly of topic, but many, many, years ago, if A1 made a throwin that first touched B2, who was out of bounds, the NFHS interpreted this situation as a throwin violation (for having not thrown the ball directly into the court) on A1, and awarded the ball to Team B for a throwin at the original spot.

I remember from pickup games, that if you tried to save a ball by throwing it off someone out of bounds, it would always start arguments. The opposing team claiming "he was already out". Perhaps that is where it came from.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

100% correct, but I've observed very competent, very veteran, officials handling this like a throwin that goes untouched out of bounds, and thus, incorrectly put the ball back in play at the original throwin spot. There may have been a rule, or interpretation, from thirty-five years ago, that drives this myth.

Hey Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.: Is this worth a trip up to your attic library?

It was a case play not nearly that long ago.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

100% correct, but I've observed very competent, very veteran, officials handling this like a throwin that goes untouched out of bounds, and thus, incorrectly put the ball back in play at the original throwin spot. There may have been a rule, or interpretation, from thirty-five years ago, that drives this myth.

Hey Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.: Is this worth a trip up to your attic library?

Wasn't nearly that long ago. It had been an unannounced change that was reversed, again without announcement, that had put this violation under throw in violations rather than OOB violations.

It was just a few years ago, I remember the discussion here on the board, and I think it was fixed the very next year after we discovered it.