[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Basketball Rules Interpretations - 2009-10

Robert F. Kanaby, Publisher, NFHS Publications © 2009

SITUATION 1: A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in and is being guarded by B1. Before releasing the ball, A1 loses his/her balance, reaches out and puts his/her hand on B1 (who is inbounds) in an effort to regain his/her balance. RULING: Throw-in violation by A1. A1 is required to remain out of bounds until releasing the throw-in pass. When A1 touches an inbounds player, he/she now has inbound status. However, if the contact on B1 is illegal, a personal foul should be called. COMMENT: A throw-in violation must be called in order to maintain the balance between offense and defense. (2-3; 9-2-1; 9-2-5)

The text of the Note following 9-2-10 in the 2009-10 NFHS rules book: "The thrower may penetrate the plane provided he/she does not touch the inbounds area before the ball is released on the throw-in pass. The opponent in this situation may legally touch or grasp the ball."

The text of the Note following 9-2-10 in the 2010-11 NFHS rules book: "The thrower may penetrate the plane provided he/she does not touch the inbounds area or a player inbounds before the ball is released on the throw-in pass. The opponent in this situation may legally touch or grasp the ball."

I remember when this Interp was published because it had no basis within the rules book and the rationale given (the thrower obtains inbounds status by touching an inbounds player) was untrue.

So the very next year the NFHS book was altered to include a new phrase making this a violation. It was NOT announced as either a rule change nor an editorial change.

The previous rules book editor Mary Struckhoff was notorious for this. My belief is that she or one of her colleagues would kick a play while working a game and then she would change the rule the next season in an attempt to retroactively make the call correct. This was also done with making any foul against a thrower an intentional personal foul, including when the opponent didn't break the boundary plane.

To me the penalty should be the same... but they didn't ask me. Maybe next year.