Rule - Situation - Interpretation !!!

[TheMentor]

New FIBA Rules
Art 17 Throw-In

Statement :
Before the thrower-in has released the ball on a throw in, it is possible that the throwing-in motion could cause that player's hand(s) with the ball to break the plane of boundary line seperating the in-bounds area from out-bounds area. In such situations, it continues to be the responsibility of the defending player to avoid the interfering with the throw0in by contacting the ball while it is still in the hands of the thrower-in.

Interpretation :
In first time, a warning shall be given to player and the coach of in-bounds player who's tuch the ball (delaying the game resume). Then, the repetition of a similar act by any player of same team may result in a technical foul.

Question :
Is this correct ?
Where can i find any interpretation ?

[Nevadaref]

It may be correct for FIBA. All I can tell you is that in the U.S., if the thrower puts the ball across the plane, it is fair game.
I'm sure that some others on this forum who work FIBA games will answer your question.

[eg-italy]

Unfortunately what TheMentor said is true.

Happily players still do not know about this rule.

"Are you defending strongly against my throw-in? Well, I can touch you with the ball and you will get a technical foul!"

FIBA is known to be looking after complications when something could be made simple.

See, for example, the old rules about the shot clock. Happily they've changed them now. Or alternating possession: they could have copied NF or NCAA, no. They want their own concoction.

Last year a case was raised: a technical foul when the ball is at disposal of a player at mid-line for the throw-in at the start of the second period (i.e., with AP). Say the throw-in is for team A.

According to the 2003/2004 rulebook, the intermission was not ended. Hence the penalty was two FTs before the start of the period. The question was: what do you do with the AP arrow?

Well, I'm a bit embarrassed to tell you what the official interpretation was. Our "Technical Consultants", i.e., the chief instructors, claimed that team A had the ball after the FTs and that the arrow would remain to indicate team A even after the throw-in starting the period. Please, don't ask me why.

We raised the case to FIBA, the answer was a rule change! Now every technical foul during an intermission gives two FTs and the ball. Except before game (FIBA could not lose the occasion to put in some exception): two FTs and jump ball.

Ciao
Enrico

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by eg-italy


Last year a case was raised: a technical foul when the ball is at disposal of a player at mid-line for the throw-in at the start of the second period (i.e., with AP). Say the throw-in is for team A.

According to the 2003/2004 rulebook, the intermission was not ended. Hence the penalty was two FTs before the start of the period. The question was: what do you do with the AP arrow?

Well, I'm a bit embarrassed to tell you what the official interpretation was. Our "Technical Consultants", i.e., the chief instructors, claimed that team A had the ball after the FTs and that the arrow would remain to indicate team A even after the throw-in starting the period. Please, don't ask me why.

This doesn't seem strange to me. In NFHS play, if a Technical foul occurs during an intermission the next period is started with 2FT and possession to the offended team. The AP arrow would remain in the direction that it was. The team is getting the ball as part of the penalty for the T, not due to an AP situation.

Also, if the thrower has the ball OOB for an AP throw-in and a T is called during the throw-in, the arrow will NOT be reversed, since the throw-in was not completed.
What you say FIBA should be embarrassed about is the correct rule in the US for NFHS play.

[eg-italy]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

This doesn't seem strange to me. In NFHS play, if a Technical foul occurs during an intermission the next period is started with 2FT and possession to the offended team. The AP arrow would remain in the direction that it was. The team is getting the ball as part of the penalty for the T, not due to an AP situation.

Also, if the thrower has the ball OOB for an AP throw-in and a T is called during the throw-in, the arrow will NOT be reversed, since the throw-in was not completed.
What you say FIBA should be embarrassed about is the correct rule in the US for NFHS play.

Starting from Sep. 1, 2004, the rule is just the same as in NHFS; last season it was different, that's the point. There was no possession for a T during an intermission, only 2FT. They were saying that team A would have had the throw-in starting the period (not part of the penalty), keeping the arrow on the same direction! That is embarrassing.
My objection was: team A had the arrow; the thow-in was not completed; 2FT for the T; next we have to start the period with AP: the arrow is still for team A. Next AP for team B. No, they said, team A!
Anyway, it was only an example to show how some people in FIBA is considering rule interpretation.

Ciao
Enrico

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by eg-italy
Unfortunately what TheMentor said is true.

Happily players still do not know about this rule.

See, for example, the old rules about the shot clock. Happily they've changed them now. Or alternating possession: they could have copied NF or NCAA, no. They want their own concoction.

Happily, we don't use FIBA.

[eg-italy]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Happily, we don't use FIBA.

The main problem is that the gurus (?) at Munich have some strange ideas. Do you want to know something else?

Well, referees are not allowed to use the "blocking foul" signal when, in a block-charge situation, the foul is committed by the defender. Instead they have to use the "pushing foul" signal. At least that's what our chiefs in Italy said. I would like to know if it is the same in other countries.

That interpretation about breaking the wall is complete foolishness (use some other word, if you prefer).

Ciao
Enrico

[NICK]

1) Gurus in Munich?, they are in Geneva, Switzerland
2) Push signal for a block? A block is a block and a push is a push, simple as it is in the Fiba rulebook.

[eg-italy]

Originally posted by NICK
1) Gurus in Munich?, they are in Geneva, Switzerland
2) Push signal for a block? A block is a block and a push is a push, simple as it is in the Fiba rulebook.

Well, I didn't notice the address change, Fiba used to be in Munich, AFAIR. I can confirm that our chief instructors in Italy prohibited the use of the block signal for the defender except off the ball. Probably they want to go past the technical commission as regards to complications.

Ciao
Enrico

[NICK]

Having refereed to Fiba rules for over 25 years, I have not found the rules to be complicated, until you start making changes to them. Then everything is not consistent as they should be. The Aussies have made changes to their 3 man officiating. They are not doing it as per the Fiba 3 man mechanics and they are having a little bit of problem on the the transition game.