Inbounding - foul?

OHBBREF

eyezen wrote
A1 inbounding ball on sideline. B1 right on top of sideline guarding A1's inbound.
A1 clears B1 with forearm to get space to inbound the ball.
Am I correct it would just be a common foul?

Rule 7 section 6 Art 3
NOTE: The thrower shall have a minimum of 3 feet horizontally as in 1-2-2. If the court is not marked accordingly, an imaginary restraining line shall be imposed by the administering official.

the official should have made sure that the player had the required space - now mind you If the thrower can step backward and attain the space then the official does not have to move the defender off the line.

I would have an intentional personal foul on this, because if the situation is reversed it is an intentional personal foul.

grunewar

eyezen wrote
B1 is inbounds and he fouls inbounder A1, it definitely is an intentional.

Yep, last night. Well played tight B13/15 game.

B scores and A1 is under the basket for the throw-in. B is in full-court, man-to-man press. I'm new T, and counting. B1 temporarily loses his man and discovers he's the inbounder. B1 runs several steps at top speed to guard the inbounding A1. B1 can't slow down, loses his balance and falls right out of bounds and into A1! 😮 CRASH! TWEET!

OHBBREF

Snaqwells wrote
Only if B1 reaches OOB and fouls A1. If B1 commits a foul without reaching OOB, it's only an intentional if it meets the other criteria.

rule nine section 2
Penalties art 11
4. If an opponent(s) of the thrower reaches through the throw-in boundary-line plane and fouls the thrower, an intentional personal foul shall be charged to the offender. No warning for delay required. true

just another ref

OHBBREF wrote
I would have an intentional personal foul on this, because if the situation is reversed it is an intentional personal foul.

The problem with this logic: It is illegal for the defender to reach through the plane. It is not illegal for the offensive player to reach through the plane.

deecee

Another illogical thing about fouls by the players with the ball is that if he uses his arm to push the defender back why is that certainly NOT intentional? It would appear that if the defender shoves the offensive player we call that Intentional but if reversed we only call a common foul? Seems unfair dont you think?

PSidbury

eyezen wrote
A1 clears B1 with forearm to get space to inbound the ball.

I kind of agree with intentional foul.
If B1 is standing in-bounds and A1 reaches in-bounds to initiate contact, then A1's intent to make contact is "pre-meditated".
A1 could just as easily have "pre-meditated" a step back to get more space out of bounds.

If B1 had "broken the plane" OOB and then A1 made contact, I would agree with delay of game warning.

Thanks,
Paul

Juulie Downs

deecee wrote
Seems unfair dont you think?

Last time I checked, "seems unfair" wasn't a criterion in deciding what to call intentional and what not to.

Book clearly states that if the defender reaches across and contact is made, it's intentional. No such rule is made about A1 making contact anywhere. So if defender is reaching across, even if A1 initiates contact, seems to me it's an intentional on defender, unless there's a DOG call prior to the contact. If A1 reaches inbounds to make contact, rules don't specify intentional, foul must be common (can't be PC because no TC). That's by the rules, and what "seems fair" to me doesn't much matter.

Mark Padgett

deecee wrote
Another illogical thing about fouls by the players with the ball is that if he uses his arm to push the defender back why is that certainly NOT intentional? It would appear that if the defender shoves the offensive player we call that Intentional but if reversed we only call a common foul? Seems unfair dont you think?

You want fair? Call Judge Judy. Since when is "fairness" a criteria for the rules?

Scratch85

PSidbury wrote
I kind of agree with intentional foul.
Paul

When there is play in the lane and the Offensive Player, with the ball, clears some space with his arms to get off a shot, do you call intentional or PC?

In the OP, I see the action as that of two players trying to accomplish something. The Offensive Player's action is illegal and therefore a foul, but I don't deem it as falling under the definition of an Intentional Foul. I can't imagine calling an Intentional Foul everytime a player uses his forearm to "get some space."

My $.02, I am calling this a personal foul (no PC or TC) and penalizing accordingly.

My other $.02, If an official chooses to call this Intentional, then it is Intentional. But it doesn't HAVE to be Intentional.

deecee

Ok so dont question what you are told to do? I was just providing food for thought.

Juulie Downs

deecee wrote
Ok so dont question what you are told to do? I was just providing food for thought.

You didn't say, "let's talk to the rules committee about this" You were implying that what's said in the book doesn't seem fair, so we shouldn't call it that way. Question all you want. But that shouldn't change how you call it, until the rule is actually changed.

deecee

but certainly a PC foul in NEVER a play on the ball...

Adam

OHBBREF wrote
rule nine section 2
Penalties art 11
4. If an opponent(s) of the thrower reaches through the throw-in boundary-line plane and fouls the thrower, an intentional personal foul shall be charged to the offender. No warning for delay required. true

Okay, I was reading "inverted" to mean simply that B1 fouls A1 rather than reaching through the plane to do it. I see what you mean now.

However, the intentional foul rule here is only for the defender reaching out of bounds. The only way you can call this intentional is if it's the same type of foul you'd call inentional on a ball handler inbounds.

Juulie Downs

deecee wrote
but certainly a PC foul in NEVER a play on the ball...

Sooo......

Juulie Downs

After a lot of thought, I'm thinking maybe you mean that since it's not a play on the ball it must be intentional?? That's some kind of error in logic though I don't remember the name of it. An illegal screen isn't a play on the ball, but it's not intentional. And as you say, no PC is a play on the ball, but a PC is almost never intentional. I just don't see any rules support for calling the contact intentional if it's initiated by A1.

WIRef

Juulie-
I would tend to agree with all you said, other than the point about being an intentional on the defender, when he reached thru the plane, but A1 initiated the contact. If you are going to go by book rule, logic says that there would have been a plane violation before any contact was made. In a case of the defender making the contact, the plane warning is over-ruled by the intentional foul. I am not sure that would be the same case with A1 initiating contact on the OOB side.

Juulie Downs

WIRef wrote
Juulie-
I would tend to agree with all you said, other than the point about being an intentional on the defender, when he reached thru the plane, but A1 initiated the contact. If you are going to go by book rule, logic says that there would have been a plane violation before any contact was made. In a case of the defender making the contact, the plane warning is over-ruled by the intentional foul. I am not sure that would be the same case with A1 initiating contact on the OOB side.

Yea, I guess it would be largely a matter of perception. The physics of the thing would mean that the violation would HAVE to happen before the contact (if it happens oob). So the foul might be seen as always being initiated by the defender. The ball-handler wouldn't have time to initiate contact before the violation happened.

OHBBREF

just another ref wrote
The problem with this logic: It is illegal for the defender to reach through the plane. It is not illegal for the offensive player to reach through the plane.

So the alert official should blow the whistel instantly upon the defnder reaching in and call the violation or warning thus avoiding the intentional foul or causing an intentional technical becuase the ball is now dead?

The other reason to call the foul intentional is that it would not be a basketball play to push a defener out of the way with the arm or ball to gain an advantage to inbound the ball?

just another ref

OHBBREF wrote
So the alert official should blow the whistel instantly upon the defnder reaching in and call the violation or warning thus avoiding the intentional foul or causing an intentional technical becuase the ball is now dead?

If the defender commits the foul, you call the intentional foul. If the defender breaks the plane, and then the thrower makes contact, I say you call the violation/technical foul.

The other reason to call the foul intentional is that it would not be a basketball play to push a defener out of the way with the arm or ball to gain an advantage to inbound the ball?

This, of course, is a judgment call. I just say that the throw-in has nothing to do with the call in this case. If you call this intentional, it would be a foul that you would call intentional if both players were inbounds.

The above discussion brings the following to mind. Intentional is perhaps not the best name for this type of foul. Intentional usually means "on purpose."
Yet by definition, many actions on the court which are done "on purpose," will never result in an intentional foul call. Conversely, intentional foul is the proper call for some things which were obviously not done "on purpose."

OHBBREF

just another ref wrote
The above discussion brings the following to mind. Intentional is perhaps not the best name for this type of foul. Intentional usually means "on purpose."
Yet by definition, many actions on the court which are done "on purpose," will never result in an intentional foul call. Conversely, intentional foul is the proper call for some things which were obviously not done "on purpose."

Especially on this particular situation that comment is very apt.