|
Mark Iam not sure I agree with your interpretation.
Let's assume the ball becomes dead when the player breaks the plane, and you have already given the warning.
Then what you said is that unless the contact is nsportsmanlike, the contact is ignored. If that is the case then why would the book talk about intentional fouls on the guy OOB? If the ball is dead then any foul on a player out of bound is a T, and there could be no leeway for making it intentional since all dead ball fouls that are called are T's.
I disagree breaking the plane makes te ball dead automatically.
There are different penalties on the defense for doing something stupid on the throw-in.
Breaking the plane is a delay tactic- warning once-if it occurs again it is a T (I dont have my books with me but if I remember right)Delays are are assigned to the team. It is not given to the player as a personal foul.
Hitting the ball while it is OOB is a T assigned to the player. (Read this as a non-contact foul while ball is live)
Fouling a player who is OOB is intentional. (Read this as contact while ball is live)
If the rules comitte had wanted the ball to become dead when the plane was broken they would have stated that more clearly and not have intentional foul ruling that contradict the basic premise of rule.
My two cents are that the ball on a delay on a throw-in remains live until we make it dead to issue a warning. I know all other delay situations the ball is dead, which will give you ammunition to say the ball is dead here, but I dont think you could ever justify calling or creating ruling that it is an intentional foul on a defensive player if the ball was dead.
Padgett- my apologies this was my fifty cent version
|