The ball becomes live during a throw-in when the ball is at the disposal of the thrower-in.

Here is a question I found on a Refresher Test (NCAA rules):
The trail official bounces the ball to A1 for a throw-in. Before A1 catches the ball, B2 fouls A2. According to this Test, this is a personal foul. As far as I`m concerned, the ball is still dead, thus a technical foul is the call. Am I wrong?

No, you are not wrong. The ball is still dead.

NCAA 6-1-4b, "The ball shall become live when, on a throw-in, the ball is placed at the disposal of the thrower-in."

NCAA 4-16-1b, "The ball is at the disposal of a player when it is caught by the thrower-in or free-thrower after it is bounced to him or her" (emphasis mine).

Seems pretty clear. Ball's dead until it's caught.

Would this foul not be ignored unless it was intentional or flagrant?

Chuck:

I agree with you 100% for both NFHS and NCAA rules codes. The question that needs to be answered is: Is the contact by B2 incidental, personal (common, intentional, or flagrant) or technical (intentional or flagrant)?

Since the ball is dead and B2's contact is not incidental then B2's contact has to be considered a technical foul by definition. But I do not know if I am comfortable with this interpretation.

I think that it could be argued that if B2's contact would be considered a common foul if the ball were live then it would be logical to consider this a personal (common) foul because the contact occured during an attempt to place the ball at the disposal of the thrower.

I did a quick look see in both the NFHS Casebook and the NCAA Approved Rulings and did not see a play like the one being discussed. But I just have to believe that there has to be a casebook play out there that covers this play.

MTD, Sr.

Gotta be intentional or flagrant
 

I disagree with the assertion that the contact must be a technical because the ball is dead.

10-3-8 (Personal Technical) ...Intentionally or flagrantly contacting an opponent when the ball is dead and such contact is not a personal foul.

4-19-5-c (A technical foul is: ) An intentional or flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead, except a foul by an airborne shooter.

4-19-1 Note Contact after the ball has become dead is ignored unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant or is committed by or on an airborne shooter.

These seem pretty clear that a contact foul during a dead ball must be intentional or flagrant to be a technical. 10-3-8 seems to imply that you can have a personal foul during a dead ball which directly contradicts 4-19-1 which requires the ball to be live. But 9-19-1 note states pretty clearly that we should ignore contact during a dead ball unless it's intentional or flagrant.

Of course, this is NFHS and I don't have the NCAA book.


[Edited by Back In The Saddle on Oct 10th, 2004 at 02:26 AM]

Thanks for the insight guys. I had not thought of the possibility of ignoring the foul unless technical intentional or flagrant. However, the answer on the test was to call this a personal foul. It may have just been an typo.

Re: Gotta be intentional or flagrant
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
[B]I disagree with the assertion that the contact must be a technical because the ball is dead.

10-3-8 (Personal Technical) ...Intentionally or flagrantly contacting an opponent when the ball is dead and such contact is not a personal foul.

4-19-5-c (A technical foul is: ) An intentional or flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead, except a foul by an airborne shooter.

4-19-1 Note Contact after the ball has become dead is ignored unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant or is committed by or on an airborne shooter.

These seem pretty clear that a contact foul during a dead ball must be intentional or flagrant to be a technical. 10-3-8 seems to imply that you can have a personal foul during a dead ball which directly contradicts 4-19-1 which requires the ball to be live. But 9-19-1 note states pretty clearly that we should ignore contact during a dead ball unless it's intentional or flagrant.

Of course, this is NFHS and I don't have the NCAA book.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Oct 10th, 2004 at 11:29 PM]

The NFHS and NCAA rules are quite clear for this type of play. By definition: a personal foul is illegal contact when the ball is live. That means that, not withstanding the airborne shooter portion of the personal foul definition, a illegal contact when the ball is live is a technical foul.

[/B][/QUOTE]Yup, that's certainly quite clear. A personal foul is illegal contact when the ball is live. And illegal contact when the ball is live is a technical foul. Ergo, a personal foul IS a technical foul!

Who woulda thunk it? :D

Yup, that's certainly quite clear. A personal foul is illegal contact when the ball is live. And illegal contact when the ball is live is a technical foul. Ergo, a personal foul IS a technical foul!

Who woulda thunk it? :D [/B][/QUOTE]Ahhh, thus a technical foul counts as a personal foul and a team foul. :D

MTD, You know, when I was in school I never gave a single thought to the folks who volunteered and made things like homecoming dances possible. Good on ya! I'm sure my bad karma will be amply rewarded as my kids get to be that age. ;)

I cannot speak to NCAA rules, as I am not particularly familiar with them. However, by NFHS I believe that your list is incorrect. Turning to this years case book (Which I got in the mail just yesterday...finally. I was absolutely giddy :D):

4.19.5 SITUATION: A1 is fouled by B1. A1 subsequently pushes B1. RULING: If a foul is called on A1, it must be either an intentional or flagrant technical. If it is ruled flagrant, A1 must be disqualified. If A1's contact during a dead ball was neither intentional nor flagrant, it should have been ignored (1-19-1 Note; 10-3-9)

The original foul by B1 obviously gives us our dead ball situation. Once it's dead, the ruling states quite clearly what I posited earlier: unless the foul is intentional or flagrant, it should be ignored.

10.3.8 SITUATION: B1 fouls A1 during an unsuccessful try. While the calling official is reporting the foul, A1 pushes B1 into another player, RULING: Intentional contact while the ball is dead constitutes an intentional technical foul. If other dead-ball contact is not intentional or flagrant, it should be ignored....

Again, unless it is intentional or flagrant, it should be ignored.

I believe your list would be correct if it read like this:

1) The official should ask the question: Was the contact incidental?
2) If the answer to the question in (1) is yes, then ignore the contact.
3) If the answer to the question is (1) is no, then the official should ask the questions: was the contact intentional or flagrant?
4) If the answer to the qustions in (3) is no, then the contact should be ignored.
5) If the answer to either question in (3) is yes, then the contact, by definition, is a technical foul, and B2 should be charged with a technical foul and Team A should be awarded the appropriate free throws and throw-in with respect to the technical foul. If it is ruled flagrant, the fouler must also be disqualified.

There's been a lot of "intentional or flagrant" discussion, as well as some general silliness, in this thread; which is fine.

But just to reiterate the point of the original question, it was not about whether or not a foul should be called. The original question posited that there was, in fact, a contact foul called during a dead ball (and it was not a PC foul).

In that circumstance, it must be a technical foul, not personal. I just want to make that point as clearly as possible for any newer guys or gals who happen to be reading this.

Yup, that's certainly quite clear. A personal foul is illegal contact when the ball is live. And illegal contact when the ball is live is a technical foul. Ergo, a personal foul IS a technical foul!

Who woulda thunk it? :D [/B][/QUOTE]


I did not proof read my post this morning and I just went back and corrected the post.

MTD, Sr.