Question 4

MidMadness

A-1's pass is deflected out of bounds by B-1. The official is ready to administer the throw in but team A is huddling and no player is available for the throw in. Official places the ball on the floor and statrts the 5 second count. Is the official correct?? I say NO, because this is not ROP situation..This would be a technical foul?? Do you concur??

Splute

MidMadness wrote
A-1's pass is deflected out of bounds by B-1. The official is ready to administer the throw in but team A is huddling and no player is available for the throw in. Official places the ball on the floor and statrts the 5 second count. Is the official correct?? I say NO, because this is not ROP situation..This would be a technical foul?? Do you concur??

Why do you think it should be a T?
I believe ROP can be used for throw-in situations per 4-38.

MidMadness

Last years rule book doesn't word it the same way. But you are absolutely correct, it does say that in 4-38. Sorry and Thanks

Splute

MidMadness,
Never take my comments as gospel... I am still learning also. I was just curious why you thought it would be a T. Some new officials tend to think many situations are immediate Ts, such as untucked uniform. I thought perhaps you were thinking of a second delay warning, which would be a T.

jer166

I do not see a delay situation here. Why do you think this is a technical foul?

Rule 7-5-2a states the official shall place the ball at the disposal of...

Case 7-5-1 Situation B covers this one. After waiting a reasonable amount of time, place the ball on the floor and begin the count.

Camron Rust

RPP doesn't apply...but that doesn't mean you don't put the ball down and count. When A is due a throwin, you are to either hand them the ball or make it available for the throwin. It's up to team A to get someone to the spot to make the throw in.

[deleted]

MidMadness wrote
A-1's pass is deflected out of bounds by B-1. The official is ready to administer the throw in but team A is huddling and no player is available for the throw in. Official places the ball on the floor and statrts the 5 second count. Is the official correct?? I say NO, because this is not ROP situation..This would be a technical foul?? Do you concur??

No. True it is not an ROP situation. The mechanic (no book available for reference) is to set the ball on the floor and begin the five count.

Splute

Camron Rust wrote
RPP doesn't apply...but that doesn't mean you don't put the ball down and count. When A is due a throwin, you are to either hand them the ball or make it available for the throwin. It's up to team A to get someone to the spot to make the throw in.

In reading rule 4-38, it seems to include throw-ins as RPP. When you go to 7-5-1, it is not as clear. Both of these are changes from last year (I believe). I think everyone is still working under the previous thoughts that RPP is only applied after T.O.'s & intermissions. However, I do not immediately get that from reading these rules. As you state you can employ this method regardless, imo. Hopefully common sense is also used here.

Jurassic Referee

Splute wrote
In reading rule 4-38, it seems to include throw-ins as RPP. When you go to 7-5-1, it is not as clear. Both of these are changes from last year (I believe). I think everyone is still working under the previous thoughts that RPP is only applied after T.O.'s & intermissions. However, I do not immediately get that from reading these rules. As you state you can employ this method regardless, imo. Hopefully common sense is also used here.

See case book play 7.5.1SitB.

Kajun Ref N Texas

KSRef07 wrote
No. True it is not an ROP situation. The mechanic (no book available for reference) is to set the ball on the floor and begin the five count.

4-38 says this is an ROP.

[deleted]

Kajun Ref N Texas wrote
4-38 says this is an ROP.

If you read 4.38 further it says "as in 7.5.1". Then 7.5.1 states specifically after a TO or intermission.

I think this is confusion to many of us. More comments welcomed. By putting the ball on the floor during a simple dead ball OOB situation isn't that the ROP procedure in essence? So why the distinction about TO and intermission?

Kajun Ref N Texas

KSRef07 wrote
If you read 4.38 further it says "as in 7.5.1". Then 7.5.1 states specifically after a TO or intermission.

I think this is confusion to many of us. More comments welcomed. By putting the ball on the floor during a simple dead ball OOB situation isn't that the ROP procedure in essence? So why the distinction about TO and intermission?

I believe that 7-5-1 is clarification that ROP is also applied after time-outs and intermissions, not exclusively after time-outs or intermissions.

Rule 4-38 is as follows:

The ROP procedure is used to prevent delay in putting the ball in play when a throw-in team does not make a thrower available OR following a time-out or intermission as in 7-5-1 and 8-1-2. The procedure results in a violation instead of a technical foul for initial delay in specific situations.

Nevadaref

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSRef07
If you read 4.38 further it says "as in 7.5.1". Then 7.5.1 states specifically after a TO or intermission.

I think this is confusion to many of us. More comments welcomed. By putting the ball on the floor during a simple dead ball OOB situation isn't that the ROP procedure in essence? So why the distinction about TO and intermission?

Kajun Ref N Texas wrote
I believe that 7-5-1 is clarification that ROP is also applied after time-outs and intermissions, not exclusively after time-outs or intermissions.

Rule 4-38 is as follows:

The ROP procedure is used to prevent delay in putting the ball in play when a throw-in team does not make a thrower available OR following a time-out or intermission as in 7-5-1 and 8-1-2. The procedure results in a violation instead of a technical foul for initial delay in specific situations.

Where were you guys during this thread? 😉

http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=38768

Nevadaref wrote
On the other hand perhaps this was just a typo. Perhaps the word "or" is extraneous in the text of 4-38 and just slipped in there: "...make a thrower available or following..."

bob jenkins wrote
I think that 4-38 has a typo (the extra "or") you mention.