Throw-in Scenario
 

Heard of this play in South Dakota last weekend and wondering everyone's thoughts.

After a basket by team B, A1 has a throw-in where he passes the ball to A2 who runs out of bounds on the end-line to receive the pass. As A2 gets out of bounds he is fouled by B2 just prior to receiving the pass from A2.

The officials called a Technical Foul on the play (there hadn't been any previous DOG warnings). I was asked about it and couldn't find the exact play in the case book and piecing it together I have come up with a DOG warning for breaking the plane and a common foul as A2 was not the thrower yet. What are your thoughts?

I think anyone who is allowed to be OOB (as in this instance) would be treated the same as an inbounder -- it's an Intentional Foul

Liveball contact cannot be a T. A2 isn't a thrower yet, so it wouldn't be an automatic int, but still could be.

Thanks for the reply.

I explained that to them and they just got flustered. I haven't seen the play yet but I have a hard time calling an intentional foul on a kid fighting around screens or something similar and consequently causing illegal contact on a player that goes out of bounds to receive a throw-in pass. Yes, if they have received the ball it's an easy Intentional Foul, but prior to receiving it I can't find rule book support to call it an IF.

There isn't any. It is specific to the thrower-in.

There is support but it's not automatic. You can still have an INT for the other ways to earn an INT

There is no support that it's an IF simply b/c the offended player was OOB, which is what the OP was looking for. I would hope nobody takes that to mean you can't call an IF if the act itself calls for it.

I'm not that optimistic

I think you could make the argument that the player OOB on the endline in such a play is a thrower, just one that doesn't have the ball. Imagine a single thrower (designates spot or otherwise) that bounces the ball on the floor (similar to a dribble) and is contacted while they do not have the ball. Would we not consider that player to still be the thrower?

If we were to give A2 intentional foul protection on this play, we are saying that any contact by B2, including incidental, would be an intentional foul. I'm not giving the offense multiple throwers-in at one time. In the case of the OP, A1 is my thrower-in until A2 gets the ball. I don't consider A1 bouncing the ball the same as A1 passing the ball to another OOB teammate.

Until someone comes up with a citation on point that would allow for multiple players to be considered the thrower-in at the same time and thus subject to the Intentional Foul rule simultaneously, I'm sticking with that stance.

Also, let's say A1 has successfully passed the ball to an OOB A2, and then A1 gets illegally contacted by the opponent while still OOB, it is no longer an automatic intentional foul, IMO.

No, because in that case there is no confusion who is the one and only thrower.

You missed the point...they could all be considered throwers while OOB on a throwin that allows it. If the one what has it isn't the one that throws it in, are they really the thrower?

Definition of thrower is player attempting to make a throw-in. I read that as whoever has possession/control of the ball.

Just call a DOG for breaking the plane, or, why would this not be an IF? If a defender fouls another player without the ball who is out of bounds, how could it be construed as incidental? How could it be anything but IF? Fouling someone who is out of bounds and does not have the ball sounds excessive to me or better yet, the defender is neutralizing his opponent's obvious advantageous position.

Strange play though.

Control is not part of the definition of a thrower. If the thrower is fouled after the release, is this not still an intentional foul? Would the same not apply to a player who has not yet received the ball to make the throw-in pass?

The definition is

The thrower is the player who attempts to make a throw-in.

How many tenses of "attempts" are we going to apply this to?

But there is only one thrower-in, so if A2 gains that status, A1 loses it. I'm not giving multiple players that status simultaneously.