Dislodging the Ball from the Thrower's Hands, but...

[Freddy]

Is the actual element of "reaching through the boundary plane" necessary to issue a 4-47-3 warning along with a player technical in this play?

A1's momentum carries him OOB after a drive and successful score. B1 grabs the ball and steps OOB to initiate the fast break with a quick throw in. On the way back to the court, A1 makes contact with the ball and dislodges it from B1's hands. A player technical was issued. But should this have been a player technical with the delay of game warning at the same time as dictated by 9-2-10 PENALTY 3, 9.2.10A, and 10-4-10? Those rules all include the feature of reaching through the OOB boundary plane, which this player did not do because he was already OOB.

The coach asked, "Don't we get a warning for that?" I said, "Coach, when your player dislodged the ball and received the technical foul, that was also considered the warning," recalling in my mind the above rule-based situations. I'm not sure if I was right or not. Any help?

[JRutledge]

Yes it is a warning and a T. Why does that matter? Well any other warning is not a T because you did this earlier in the game. So you were right to address this to the coach.

Peace

[Freddy]

Interesting that 10-4-5a allows us to issue a player T but without the "reaching through" aspect and without the otherwise associated delay involved. I would consider that an alternative, but it seems as though the situation merits the warning.

[Raymond]

Just did a whole bunch of reading. 10-4-5a has the phrase "or from being put in play" which is not included in any of the rules or references that allow for a delay warning.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Just did a whole bunch of reading. 10-4-5a has the phrase "or from being put in play" which is not included in any of the rules or references that allow for a delay warning.

By literal rule, I'm tending in this direction of not issuing the delay in conjunction with the player T for delay of game per 10-4-5a, though it seems that what the player did was more egregious than "reaching over the boundary line" to contact the ball in the thrower's hands. An anomaly, perhaps. I can see selling it either way. Glad it's rare.

[BillyMac]

... but will this provide any guidance?

2011-12 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations
SITUATION 8: 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)

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... but will this provide any guidance?

2011-12 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations
SITUATION 8: 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)

Ooooooo. Yes, I ran across that in the Interps. In fact, that also made it into the Casebook, 9.2.10C. However, I didn't associate it at the time with the play under discussion. If the NFHS is stating a universal principle there, this certainly would apply and would suggest that a 4-47-3 DOG warning NOT be issued for this situation.
Thanx.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

the Casebook, 9.2.10C.

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)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Ooooooo. Yes, I ran across that in the Interps. In fact, that also made it into the Casebook, 9.2.10C. However, I didn't associate it at the time with the play under discussion. If the NFHS is stating a universal principle there, this certainly would apply and would suggest that a 4-47-3 DOG warning NOT be issued for this situation.
Thanx.

I think it does suggest a DOG warning would be issued.

Being out of bounds is completely penetrating the OOB plane.

[Raymond]

If a player is already out of bounds legally, we cannot penalize him for being there when the throw-in starts after a made basket. So any infractions and penalties should not include those that arise from reaching through the boundary plane or stepping out of bounds AFTER the throw-in starts.

In Freddy's play, the offender can get a technical foul for keeping the ball from being put in play. But keeping the ball from being put in play is not included in any of the references in regards to delay warnings. The offender did not reach through the boundary plane and the offender did not interfere with the ball after a goal or prevent the ball from becoming live.

So I have a technical foul with no warning attached. If he had contacted the thrower-in, I would have an intentional foul with no warning attached.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Freddy]

I'm going up with an open hand, closing down on the discussion and signaling a held ball on this one.
I like the rules-based defenses of both sides of this discussion. And I'm happy it's such an obscure play that it won't happen often, leading to inconsistency of enforcement from crew to crew in any certain area. The one good thing about it is that, for anyone taking the time and effort to investigate the actions and issues and related side-issues, it grants a very thorough review of the principles involved in other plays that indeed happen more frequently that we gotta get right every time.
Thanx for the diligent and dynamic discussion everyone!