[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee

Above, you have stated two elements, neither of which is what this thread is about. Perhaps you just made a typo? (That's what I think...) (Element 1, Element 2)

Yes, it is legal for the thrower-in to cross the plane. Yes, it illegal for the defender to cross the plane.

I believe that both of these elements are vital to making a ruling on this throw-in play.

It might NOT be legal (that's why we are having this thread ) for him to cross the plane and cause contact with B, especially when designed to nuetralize an opponent's skilled (and legal) defensive movements.

This thread is about A-initiated contact. It seems like you're now telling us that this is legal. If that is so, then why did you previously say otherwise:

Are you now changing your mind about the penalty? Hey, I don't mind if that's what you're doing, I just want to know.

1. In no way am I changing my mind or telling you that it is legal for A1 to cause illegal contact. I am merely pointing out that it is legal for him to break the boundary plane, while it is illegal for B1 to do so. Since we agree on all of that I will move on to the concluding point.

Originally posted by Nevadaref
That is why I think that the reasoning put forth above is flawed. The reverse shouldn't be true because one player is allowed to break the plane according to the rules.

Yup. He is allowed to break the plane. So let him break the plane. Don't let him break the plane AND foul someone! [/B][/QUOTE]

Right! We agree on that, where we differ is on what is the proper penalty to assess to A1. Here is where the two elements from earlier come into play. The NFHS has deemed it to be an intentional personal foul if THE DEFENDER, B1, breaks the boundary plane prior to the release of the ball on a throw-in and fouls the thrower. It doesn't matter if the contact is a solid slap, a light touch on the wrist, or a purposeful holding of the thrower's arm; the penalty in ALL cases is automatically an intentional personal foul. (Of course, flagrant contact would cause a flagrant personal foul to be charged.) Why is this the case? The NFHS rationale for the more severe penalty of an intentional foul rather than just a common foul is that the defender has absolutely no business contacting that thrower in any way since he is specifically prohibited from breaking the boundary plane. So B1 has done two things wrong: break the plane AND commit a foul. Therefore, B1 gets slapped with a stiffer penalty than he normally would for committing a simple foul.
Now when we turn this around and A1 is the one who breaks the boundary plane and causes contact, he has only broken one rule, not two, because it is legal for the thrower to penetrate the boundary plane. So why should the NFHS stick him with an intentional foul for his contact? He should be penalized for his illegal contact on its own merits and nothing more. That is why I contend that he should merely be charged with a common personal foul on the play in this thread. Now, I admit that there certainly are cases in which the thrower could be charged with an intentional foul, but that would depend upon what exactly he did. I don't see pushing an opponent's arm out of the way as rising to the level of an intentional foul. If one argues that he is negating an opponent's obvious advantageous position, then one would have to assert that the defender guarding the thrower on a throw-in always has an obvious advantageous position because this is the way that they always start out. That is ridiculous. The NFHS would never consider that to be the case simply because the rules are designed to create an equal balance of play between the offense and the defense. Therefore, the placement of the players for a throw-in can't be said to put one side in an obvious advantageous position. This isn't like wrestling where one guy has to take a position down on all fours!

That is the best way that I can explain my stance.



All text in red in this post was written by Nevadaref.


[Edited by Nevadaref on Jan 24th, 2006 at 08:36 AM]