[ChuckElias]

This thread has now spilled into another one, so to avoid having the same conversation going on in two different places, I'm going to use some of Nevada's comments from the other thread in this post. Nevada makes the same claim there that he makes to Dan in the following quote:

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Dan,
you are making the same logical argument as those who say that a defender has committed a violation as soon as he breaks the OOB plane on a throw-in and therefore cannot be penalized with a T for fouling the thrower or for slapping the ball while the thrower still has it.

The logic of this argument has not been accepted by the NFHS and they wrote a couple of casebook plays to say just that. See 10.3.12 Situations A,B,and C on page 77 of the 2002-2003 casebook.

From the other thread:

Many have argued that when a defender steps through the OOB plane during a throw-in and fouls the thrower, it should not be a intentional foul because as soon as the defender breaks the OOB plane with any part of his body this constitutes an immediate throw-in violation and a warning for delay should be called.
This line of reasoning has been shot down by casebook play 10.3.12 Situation C. The same is true for reaching through and slapping the ball; just look at the casebook plays above this one.

I would say, Nevada, that the difference between the casebook plays you cite and the play that we're talking about is that in the casebook, breaking the plane and touching the ball are part of the same act. They happen almost simultaneously. If the defender has his hands thru the OOB plane and is waving them in the inbounder's face for 3 seconds, are you going to wait another 3 or 4 seconds to see if he also touches the ball? No.

So then in our play, if the offensive player steps OOB to receive the pass or to avoid a defender, are you going to wait 3 or 4 seconds to see if he runs the endline? No.

In your casebook citations, it would be nearly impossible to call the violation before the foul takes place. Therefore, you call the foul. It's all part of the same action. So those cases do not apply to the situation we're discussing. If you can call the violation before the foul, then do it. But if you can't, then you call the foul. In the case we're discussing, the violation clearly happened before the player had a chance to "delay" his return to the floor. So call the violation.

In short, you penalize what the player does in addition to crossing the OOB plane.

Again, I don't think that's quite the right way to think about it. You penalize the player's action. If the action included touching the ball, fine. But if the action is merely crossing the plane, then penalize only that.

Originally posted by Larks
A2 is in the paint. A2 proceeds to run OOB Behind A1 and returns in play near the sideline ready to receive a pass.

Originally posted by Nevada
Sure seems a heck of a lot like casebook play 10.3.4 Situation B to me! The call there is a T.

True, but this is different from a situation involving a throw-in. In a throw-in situation, you enforce the throw-in provision. In the above case, leaving the playing court is NOT a violation. So you can't apply it to the situation that we've been discussing, as you try to do.

The violation is there to cover situations like 9.2.9 and when a team throws an OOB pass between teammates when it doesn't have the right to run the endline.

Absolutely not, Nevada. If what you say were true, then the violation would be superfluous. It would already be covered by the other two rules you mention. But the case we've been discussing fits neither of those situations. The violation is there to keep everybody (offense and defense), except the inbounder, on the inbounds side of the court during a throw-in.

In case you haven't noticed, Nevada, nobody agrees with the T in this situation. Take the hint