Double Jeopardy ...

[BillyMac]

Indianaref's recent post got me to thinking (always a dangerous proposition).

Team B has already been officially warned (in the book) for a delay of game situation. Several minutes later, B1 crosses the boundary line and fouls inbounder A1 (which absent the earlier delay of game warning would have resulted in an intentional personal foul in addition to a delay of game warning).

What happens next?

Intentional personal foul, A1 shoots the free throws?

Delay of game technical foul, anyone on Team A shoots the free throws?

Both?

What's a mother to do?

[bob jenkins]

It was a T when B crossed the line. That ends the throw-in. The contact is ignored (unless on its own it's I or F, not because it's otherwise an I by rule).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It was a T when B crossed the line. That ends the throw-in. The contact is ignored (unless on its own it's I or F, not I by rule).

Isn't crossing the boundary line and fouling the inbounder always an intentional foul by rule?

Or are you saying that there was no longer an inbounder because the throwin had ended with the technical foul?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Isn't crossing the boundary line and fouling the inbounder always an intentional foul by rule?

Or are you saying that there was not longer an inbounder because the throwin had ended with the technical foul?

The latter -- edited my response to make it more clearerer

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The latter -- edited my response to make it more clearerer

Makes sense (and a good way to avoid double jeopardy) but there's a lot of citations that say it's always an intentional foul.

4.19.14 SITUATION: What type of foul is committed when: B1 crosses the end line and fouls thrower A1; RULING: It is an intentional personal foul.

9.2.10 SITUATION B: Team A has a (a) designated spot throw-in, or (b) alternating-possession throw-in along the end line. Thrower A1 extends the ball with his/her arms over the end line such that part of the forearms, hands, and the ball are entirely on the inbounds side of the boundary line. B2 slaps A1 on the wrist and dislodges the ball. RULING: In (a) and (b), when a defender makes contact with a thrower-in, the result is an intentional foul. Where A1’s arms are located (on the inbounds or out-of-bounds side of the boundary line) is immaterial.

9.2.10 SITUATION C: Team A has a designated spot throw-in along the end line. Thrower A1 extends the ball with his/her arms over the end line such that part of the forearms, hands and the ball are entirely on the inbounds side of the boundary line. B2 slaps A1 on the wrist and dislodges the ball. RULING: When a defender makes contact with a thrower-in, the result is an intentional foul. Where A1’s arms are located (on the inbounds or out-of-bounds side of the boundary line) is immaterial for this penalty to be assessed. A1 is awarded two free throws and Team A awarded a throw-in at the spot nearest the foul. COMMENT: For a boundary plane violation warning to also be assessed, the defender must actually violate the rule and penetrate the boundary plane. (4-19-3e; 4-47-1; 7-5-4b; 9-2-10 Penalty 4)

10.4.10 SITUATION A: After a field goal, A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in. Thrower A1 holds the ball: (a) B2 crosses the boundary line and fouls A1; or (b) B2 reaches through the out-of-bounds plane and touches the ball while in the hands of A1. RULING: It is an intentional personal foul in (a), and a technical foul in (b). In (a), such a contact foul with the thrower during a throw-in shall be considered intentional, or if it is violent, it should be ruled flagrant. COMMENT: Either act is a foul and it should be ruled as such whenever it occurs during a game without regard to time or score or whether the team had or had not been warned for a delay-of-game situation. If the player making the throw-in (A1) reaches through the out-of-bounds plane into the court and B1 then slaps the ball from the hand of A1, no violation has occurred. B1 has merely slapped a live ball from the hands of A1. (4-19-3, 4; 9-2-10 Penalty 3, 4)

10.4.10 SITUATION C: Team A scores near the end of the fourth quarter and is trailing by one point. B1 has the ball and is moving along the end line to make the throw-in. A2 steps out of bounds and fouls B1. Is the foul personal or technical? RULING: This is an intentional personal foul. The time remaining to be played or whether Team A had been previously warned for a delay-of-game situation is not a -factor. If the team had not been warned, the foul constitutes the warning. (4-19-1; 9-2-10 Penalty 4)


An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or
may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act.
Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to:
e. Contact with a thrower-in as in 9-2-10 Penalty 4.

The opponent(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of
his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary-line
plane until the ball has been released on a throw-in pass.
NOTE: 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.
PENALTIES: (Art. 10)
4. If an opponent(s) contacts the thrower, an intentional personal foul
shall be charged to the offender. No warning for delay required.

[Nevadaref]

This will be one of the few threads that you will see in which Bob is not correct.

The proper ruling is an intentional personal foul. The entire act is to be viewed by the official in this situation. The ball does not become dead upon the breaking of the plane by the defender and the contact with the thrower is penalized.

As for the warning, it is only given in this situation if the team has not previously been warned.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The ball does not become dead upon the breaking of the plane by the defender and the contact with the thrower is penalized.

If the ball did became dead, we would never be able to call this type of intentional foul, just the one where the inbounder holds the ball and his arms and hands over the inbound side of the boundary.

Wait? We can call intentional (or flagrant) fouls during a dead ball, it would be technical, not personal.

[BillyMac]

Isn't any delay of game after a delay of game warning always a team technical foul?

Isn't crossing the boundary line and fouling the inbounder always an intentional personal foul?

After a warning, which one is charged, or are they both charged?

Remember in one the inbounder shoots the free throws, in another the best free shooter on the team gets to shoot the free throws, so it really does make a difference, it's not just academic .

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This will be one of the few threads that you will see in which Bob is not correct.

The proper ruling is an intentional personal foul. The entire act is to be viewed by the official in this situation. The ball does not become dead upon the breaking of the plane by the defender and the contact with the thrower is penalized.

As for the warning, it is only given in this situation if the team has not previously been warned.

I agree. IPF for the entire single act.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I agree. IPF for the entire single act.

Upon reflection, I am inclined to agree. But, it seems strange that there'd be a lesser penalty (the person fouled must shoot) for a more egregious act.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Upon reflection, I am inclined to agree. But, it seems strange that there'd be a lesser penalty (the person fouled must shoot) for a more egregious act.

True. I actually like the rationale that the ball would be dead the moment the line is crossed, but that isn't the approved interpretation. :/

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... seems strange that there'd be a lesser penalty (the person fouled must shoot) for a more egregious act.

My same exact thought.

Plus halfway up the court for the technical inbound, a big deal with two seconds remaining in a period.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

True. I actually like the rational that the ball would be dead the moment the line is crossed, but that isn't the approved interpretation. :/

Wouldn't that mean the violation always precludes the intentional personal foul from happening? As soon as the defender crosses a boundary line the play is dead on all occurrences.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Wouldn't that mean the violation always precludes the intentional personal foul from happening? As soon as the defender crosses a boundary line the play is dead on all occurrences.

Yes, it would. That, IMO, is far better than the silliness of requiring an IPF for legally playing the ball, misisng, and hitting the arm all while staying on the inbounds side of the line.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Wouldn't that mean the violation always precludes the intentional personal foul from happening? As soon as the defender crosses a boundary line the play is dead on all occurrences.

... unless subsequent illegal contact is intentional or flagrant, in which case it's a technical, not a personal, foul.

I've posted plenty of citations and rules above to show that crossing the boundary and illegally contacting the inbounder is always considered an intentional foul (but personal, not technical).

Interesting thread.