new coach is a downgrade

26 Year Gap

Last night, had a kid take the ball out after a made basket. A team mate wanted to throw it in. First player tosses it to him, then his teammate, who is still IB, steps OOB. Tweet. HC starts to make a fuss about it, I told him his first player was OOB.

HT I let him know exactly what happened on the play as it was near the end of the half, and did not have opportunity earlier. He started arguing and saying that he had game film. Game over for him as he is now in the short leash category. His predecessor had a different demeanor. As an aside the JVC/AC mentioned to one of my partners that that happened with that kid a lot.

deecee

If its obvious that the IB player was going to be the actual in-bounder I would just continue my 5 count.

Adam

deecee wrote
If its obvious that the IB player was going to be the actual in-bounder I would just continue my 5 count.

Why?

Rich

deecee wrote
If its obvious that the IB player was going to be the actual in-bounder I would just continue my 5 count.

Nope, try again.

26 Year Gap

darn you quoters....

bainsey

"It's not soccer, Coach."

BktBallRef

26 Year Gap wrote
Last night, had a kid take the ball out after a made basket. A team mate wanted to throw it in. First player tosses it to him, then his teammate, who is still IB, steps OOB. Tweet. HC starts to make a fuss about it, I told him his first player was OOB.

I had a 3 count on a thrower last week when she turned and threw the ball toward me. Tweet. OOB the other way.

bob jenkins

deecee wrote
If its obvious that the IB player was going to be the actual in-bounder I would just continue my 5 count.

Once I've started my count, then I've determined who the inbounder is (for the moment).

IF I haven't started my count, and the "non inbounder" has the ball and tosses to the "inbounder", then I can wait a bit (depending on the game situation).

Nevadaref

deecee wrote
If its obvious that the IB player was going to be the actual in-bounder I would just continue my 5 count.

Another gem from our future D1 official. Did you learn this at camp too?

bob jenkins wrote
Once I've started my count, then I've determined who the inbounder is (for the moment).

IF I haven't started my count, and the "non inbounder" has the ball and tosses to the "inbounder", then I can wait a bit (depending on the game situation).

Wow, this is surprising from you. It isn't within the official's purview to worry about who the inbounder is or will be. All that the official need consider is if the ball is at the disposal of the throwing team. If so, then the five-second count should be started.

bob jenkins

Nevadaref wrote
Wow, this is surprising from you. It isn't within the official's purview to worry about who the inbounder is or will be. All that the official need consider is if the ball is at the disposal of the throwing team. If so, then the five-second count should be started.

I think that's what I said. If I haven't started my count, then the ball isn't at the disposal. So, the toss is of no consequence and I can wait a bit (depending on the game situation) to determione that the ball is at the disposal.

MD Longhorn

Nevadaref wrote
Wow, this is surprising from you. It isn't within the official's purview to worry about who the inbounder is or will be. All that the official need consider is if the ball is at the disposal of the throwing team. If so, then the five-second count should be started.

Then I think you must have misunderstood him.

Nevadaref

Perhaps I misunderstood, but it seems that some posters wish to wait until a specific player has the ball to begin their 5-second count. The rule states that the count shall begin when the ball is available to ANY MEMBER of the throwing team, so why would anyone delay or wait a bit?

APG

Nevadaref wrote
Perhaps I misunderstood, but it seems that some posters wish to wait until a specific player has the ball to begin their 5-second count. The rule states that the count shall begin when the ball is available to ANY MEMBER of the throwing team, so why would anyone delay or wait a bit?

If there's no appreciable delay, I see no issue with handling it the way bob suggested.

JRutledge

APG wrote
If there's no appreciable delay, I see no issue with handling it the way bob suggested.

It is called common sense. Not everyone has that thing in their capacity.

Peace

just another ref

deecee wrote
If its obvious that the IB player was going to be the actual in-bounder I would just continue my 5 count.

What would make such a thing obvious? If the first guy is out of bounds, and tosses it to the second guy inbounds, who subsequently steps out, I think I would have the violation whistled before I had time to speculate about anything else.

Nevadaref

JRutledge wrote
It is called common sense. Not everyone has that thing in their capacity.

Common sense would be to just apply the rule. Keep it simple and do it by the book.
What is wrong with that?

JRutledge

Nevadaref wrote
Common sense would be to just apply the rule. Keep it simple and do it by the book.
What is wrong with that?

The problem with that logic is that you assume that the rules always are clear and concise. They are not always that way and there are real things that happen in games that are not clearly covered. Just look at your stance on many rules alone. Not everyone agrees with them and not everyone is mandated to follow them the way you suggest. And if all rules were so clear as you suggest, then we would not have debates over things like what can or cannot happen with many rules and current changes. We had a rule we could not even agree on here if Team Control was still a factor after a throw-in had completed and you are actually saying that "Follow the rule...?" OK, go with that one.

Peace

Adam

JRutledge wrote
The problem with that logic is that you assume that the rules always are clear and concise. They are not always that way and there are real things that happen in games that are not clearly covered. Just look at your stance on many rules alone. Not everyone agrees with them and not everyone is mandated to follow them the way you suggest. And if all rules were so clear as you suggest, then we would not have debates over things like what can or cannot happen with many rules and current changes. We had a rule we could not even agree on here if Team Control was still a factor after a throw-in had completed and you are actually saying that "Follow the rule...?" OK, go with that one.

Peace

I'd agree with the sentiment, but the rule on this play couldn't be more clear.

bob jenkins

just another ref wrote
What would make such a thing obvious? If the first guy is out of bounds, and tosses it to the second guy inbounds, who subsequently steps out, I think I would have the violation whistled before I had time to speculate about anything else.

It depends a little (or maybe a lot) on how the first guy got out of bounds with the ball.

It only happens maybe once every couple of games, but it's clear that the person OOB does not really have the ball at his/her disposal.

APG

Nevadaref wrote
Common sense would be to just apply the rule. Keep it simple and do it by the book.
What is wrong with that?

I don't see anyone setting aside a rule. The covering official is allowed discretion in determining when the ball is at the disposal of a team.