boundary plane question

[Almost Always Right]

This one is pretty simple.
If there is contact made, there should be no question you have an intentional or technical. Intentional with the player, Technical with the ball. He is reaching ACROSS the plain. There is no reason for him/her to be outside the playing area. This is not a hard *** call either, this seems very easy.
TR

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

You're kidding, right? Why would the FED bother to put 9-2-12PENALTY4 in the rule book then?

That's completely wrong, Camron.

Why is it in the book? So you have an option to penalize more severly if the situation merits it!

We have several options given in the rules.

---

Consider 10-3-7 : Delay the game by acts such as:
a. Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play.

This, when after a made basket, overlaps with the delay of game warning rules. You have a choice depending on the severity.

---

B1 run over A1 at the same time as B1 knocks the ball OOB. You could call a foul or a violation. You get to choose. Of course, the rules say call the first one that happens, but in practice, we call the one that fits the situation best.

---

B1 reaches well through the line and in the same motion, slaps the ball away from the thrower (or makes substantial contact with the thrower)...a definite T (Intentional foul)...but in doing so, you've implicity chosen to ignore a violation that occured first.

B1 reaches slightly through the line and the thrower moves such that there is a slight brush on the ball (or with the thrower), ... the violation is certainly more fitting.

As I said before, you have the option of either one so that you don't have to choose between nothing and a T. If the contact is minor and is not due to a deliberate attempt to make contact with the player or ball, I think the warning can be a good choice.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
[/B]

B1 reaches slightly through the line and the thrower moves such that there is a slight brush on the ball (or with the thrower), ... the violation is certainly more fitting.

As I said before, you have the option of either one so that you don't have to choose between nothing and a T. If the contact is minor and is not due to a deliberate attempt to make contact with the player or ball, I think the warning can be a good choice.
[/B][/QUOTE]Question, Camron?

Half-way through the 4th quarter, an A player reaches through the plane and touches the ball while a B thrower is holding it OOB. You follow your reasoning above and now issue a warning to team A. With about 10 seconds to go, B scores to come within a point, but has no TO's left. A1 goes OOB with the ball with 7 seconds to go, you start your 5-second count, and a B player immediately reaches over the plane and interferes with the ball. Are you now gonna stop the clock to issue a warning to team B, and at the same time allow team B to set up their defense for a possible steal or a quick foul? Doesn't leave you much choice does it, considering 9.2.11COMMENT.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Camron.I just can't believe that the FED intended to give us options on these calls. To me, the rules are very explicit:
- reach through the plane without touching anything or anybody----> warning.
- reach through the plane and touch the thrower----> intentional personal foul
- reach through the plane and touch the ball in the thrower's hands---->technical foul.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

B1 reaches slightly through the line and the thrower moves such that there is a slight brush on the ball (or with the thrower), ... the violation is certainly more fitting.

As I said before, you have the option of either one so that you don't have to choose between nothing and a T. If the contact is minor and is not due to a deliberate attempt to make contact with the player or ball, I think the warning can be a good choice.
[/B]

Question, Camron?

Half-way through the 4th quarter, an A player reaches through the plane and touches the ball while a B thrower is holding it OOB. You follow your reasoning above and now issue a warning to team A. With about 10 seconds to go, B scores to come within a point, but has no TO's left. A1 goes OOB with the ball with 7 seconds to go, you start your 5-second count, and a B player immediately reaches over the plane and interferes with the ball. Are you now gonna stop the clock to issue a warning to team B, and at the same time allow team B to set up their defense for a possible steal or a quick foul? Doesn't leave you much choice does it, considering 9.2.11COMMENT.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Camron.I just can't believe that the FED intended to give us options on these calls. To me, the rules are very explicit:
- reach through the plane without touching anything or anybody----> warning.
- reach through the plane and touch the thrower----> intentional personal foul
- reach through the plane and touch the ball in the thrower's hands---->technical foul. [/B][/QUOTE]

You hare-brained, dim-witted, village idiot!!! ( hey, give me my keyboard back!!) ..df
das j
fdjl $##*
&@%$#

OK. Back....

If they did't give us options, the T/Intentional could never happen since we are to call the infractions in the order they occur.

In the last play in your scenario, I'm either not going to blow my whistle unless/until A can't get the pass off in time or I'm calling the T.

If they, at any time, reach through with the express purpose of interfering with the throwin and touch the ball, you bet I'm going to call the T. No question.

If in the earlier situation of your scenario, the act was an attempt to block the throwin pass...a T would be my choice. However, if they had their hands across the line but the contact with the ball was minor and/or appeared inadvertant, a violation/warning would be my call.


I have called both a violation and a warning when the ball was contacted.

[Daryl H. Long]

Please send me the Cameron Rust Federation Basketball Rules book.

Better yet, if you are reffing by NFHS rules then USE IT.
Jurassic gave you the right answer and even quoted the rules.

You said, "If they did't give us options, the T/Intentional could never happen since we are to call the infractions in the order they occur." There is nothing accurate in this statement at all.

NFHS didn't give us an option and conversely are very explicit of what to call.

Penalty rule 9 Section 2
1. 1st time opponent crosses boundary = warning
2. 2nd time = Technical foul
3. Opponent crosses boundary AND touches/dislodges ball = T
4. Opponent crosses Boundary AND fouls thrower = Intentional personal foul.






[Edited by Daryl H. Long on Jan 26th, 2005 at 01:27 AM]

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
If they did't give us options, the T/Intentional could never happen since we are to call the infractions in the order they occur.

Camron, there are a number of situations in various parts of the book, where specific mention is made as to the quickness with which things follow after one another. For instance, a double foul can be ca;;ed when the two opponents foul each other more or less at the same time. Howard doesn't like this, because of the penalty, and he says, "One had to come first." GBut the book talks specifically about the situation when they are pretty much at the same time. Of course, metaphysically they weren't at exactly the same instant. But there is room to call the sitch a double. You're not expected to penalize only the first. I think the same idea is to be applied here. If the contact comes so quickly after the plane violation that you don't have time to blow your whistle, then the contact is the infraction that you should call. I think your example where the defender is waving her arms around and sort of accidentally bumps the ball or the in-bounder shouldn't happen, because you should get your whistle into action before the contact. If it all happens too fast, then it's a T (or intentional).

[Nevadaref]

There is no choice here. The call of an intentional/technical (whichever is appropriate) is mandatory.
10.3.11 Situation A is the controlling reference.

The Comment following that play even includes, "Either act is a foul and it should be called whenever it occurs during a game without regard to time or score or whether the team had or had not been warned for a throw-in plane violation."

What could be clearer?
This tells us:
1. It IS a FOUL, not a violation or a warning.
2. It definitely is a call that the NFHS wants made.
3. NO previous warning is necessary.

Lastly, to answer an earlier question if merely touching the thrower on the OOB side of the boundary plane constitutes a foul, we need to refer to the definition of a foul in 4-19-1. The key phrase used there is "illegal contact with an opponent."
Since 9-2-11 tells us that no opponent 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," I conclude that the contact must be deemed illegal. His hand isn't allowed to be over that line. Therefore, simply touching the thrower on the OOB side of the plane meets the definition of a foul.

[Camron Rust]

Daryl, I'm not making anything up. Everything I've claimed is directly out of the NFHS book. I'm a stickler for knowing the real rules and despise those that make up their own.

My assertions about the application are that you can have the opportunity for calling a violation before the ball can be touched....in some cases.

Consider it in slow motion....

If you call the violation for crossing the line by blowing the whistle, then the ball is touched, you can't possibly turn that into a T...the ball is already dead and there is no thrower since there is throwin in progress.

If you recognize the violation before the ball is touched and are blowing the whistle as the ball is touched, the ball is once again dead on the violation that you've chosen to and you can't possibly turn this into a T.

Rules to support my assertion of an option:

9-2-11...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.
6-7-9...The ball becomes dead, or remains dead, when...A violation, as in 9-2 through 13, occurs.

If there is identifiable time lapse between the player breaking the plane and touching the ball, the ball will already be dead and there is no longer a thrower or a throwin.

Now, I also agree (and have never said otherwise) that it should be called a T when that defender makes a direct swat at the ball and touches it as a result...all in one action. My point about the option is when B1 has his hand over the line for some time (perhaps to block an anticipated release...which is permitted) and inadvertently makes contact with the ball when the thrower retracts the ball and moves laterally with the ball.

Again, I've never said you shouldn't and can't call the T. Just that there are situations where the violation is more appropriate to the spirit/intent of the rule and is supported by the rule.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
Daryl, I'm not making anything up. Everything I've claimed is directly out of the NFHS book. I'm a stickler for knowing the real rules and despise those that make up their own.

My assertions about the application are that you can have the opportunity for calling a violation before the ball can be touched....in some cases.

Consider it in slow motion....

If you call the violation for crossing the line by blowing the whistle, then the ball is touched, you can't possibly turn that into a T...the ball is already dead and there is no thrower since there is throwin in progress.

If you recognize the violation before the ball is touched and are blowing the whistle as the ball is touched, the ball is once again dead on the violation that you've chosen to and you can't possibly turn this into a T.

Rules to support my assertion of an option:

9-2-11...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.
6-7-9...The ball becomes dead, or remains dead, when...A violation, as in 9-2 through 13, occurs.

If there is identifiable time lapse between the player breaking the plane and touching the ball, the ball will already be dead and there is no longer a thrower or a throwin.

Now, I also agree (and have never said otherwise) that it should be called a T when that defender makes a direct swat at the ball and touches it as a result...all in one action. My point about the option is when B1 has his hand over the line for some time (perhaps to block an anticipated release...which is permitted) and inadvertently makes contact with the ball when the thrower retracts the ball and moves laterally with the ball.

Again, I've never said you shouldn't and can't call the T. Just that there are situations where the violation is more appropriate to the spirit/intent of the rule and is supported by the rule.

Nice attempt to wiggle out.

You said OPTIONS, but what you described is TIMING. 2 very different things.

If they break the plane, whistle, warning or T, that's the rule.

If they break the plane and contact, whistle, T or intentional foul, that's the rule.

It's not an option, if you have not ALREADY called the plane violation, BEFORE the contact you cannot give the lesser penalty, which is what OPTION implies.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Consider it in slow motion....

Camron, the problem is that in most cases it can't be considered in slow motion. If you have time to get the whistle in after the plane is broken and before the contact, then you have the violation or warning choices. But it almost never happens that way.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by blindzebra

Nice attempt to wiggle out.

You said OPTIONS, but what you described is TIMING. 2 very different things.

If they break the plane, whistle, warning or T, that's the rule.

If they break the plane and contact, whistle, T or intentional foul, that's the rule.

It's not an option, if you have not ALREADY called the plane violation, BEFORE the contact you cannot give the lesser penalty, which is what OPTION implies.

I don't consider it wiggling out....more of not clearly/completely stating my argument the first time.

I think I did say from the beginning that I have and will continue to call the T in some cases and that I think it is certainly applicable but that I also think that the rule grant us some ability to use our judegement in some cases.

Even with TIMING you have OPTIONS. If you choose not to call it when the plane is broken then call the T when the ball is later touched, you have chosen the option of calling the T and not the option of the warning which happened first. We often "ignore" violations. (How many of you actually call this violation/warning EVERY time a player's finger breaks the plane?)

How often do we see a little bump that we're going to pass on that subsequently turns into a travel or OOB and we go back and get the foul? There is substantial precedent for sometimes backing up and getting the first thing that happens.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Jan 26th, 2005 at 03:52 PM]

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

I don't consider it wiggling out....more of not clearly/completely stating my argument the first time.

I think I did say from the beginning that I have and will continue to call the T in some cases and that I think it is certainly applicable but that I also think that the rule grant us some ability to use our judegement in some cases.

Even with TIMING you have OPTIONS. If you choose not to call it when the plane is broken then call the T when the ball is later touched, you have chosen the option of calling the T and not the option of the warning which happened first. We often "ignore" violations. (How many of you actually call this violation/warning EVERY time a players finger breaks the plane?)

How often do we see a little bump that we're going to pass on that subsequently turns into a travel or OOB and we go back and get the foul? There is substantial precedent for somethings backing up and getting the first thing that happens.

Yes you are wiggling, and you are doing a VERY poor job of it.

There is not an option within the rules, PERIOD.

That is also an apples and oranges comparison on the bump to violation, why?

Because you are dealing with a foul/no-call on one player and a play-on/violation on the other. That is NOTHING like a single player doing one thing that becomes another.

If B1 bumps A1 and you pass, and then B1 grabs A1 and throws him to the floor intentionally are you going to say, "No it is not an intentional/flagrant foul, because the block happened first?"

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
Daryl, I'm not making anything up. Everything I've claimed is directly out of the NFHS book. I'm a stickler for knowing the real rules and despise those that make up their own.

My assertions about the application are that you can have the opportunity for calling a violation before the ball can be touched....in some cases.

Cameron,

I understand where you are coming from and know exactly why you are making the argument that you believe to be correct. There is some logic to your argument. When the rules committee addressed this rule (1991 I believe) and made changes many astute interpreters used the same logic to show the committee they needed to readdress and rewrite the rule to take care of situations where rules conflicted.

They considered the spirit and intent of the rule, with much emphasis on what penalties to assess in each situation and whether said penalty was too severe or not severe enough. The rule has been finalized in its present form.

In all three cases the committe has said a warning shall be given for the infraction. In situation where the team only broke the plane then the warning was the only penalty. However, if something else other than just breaking the plane happens such as contact with the ball or thrower the warning is given AND an ADDITONAL penalty is assessed. They removed the opportunity for us to call only the violation.

By the way, I agree with you the rules committee should have made the first boundary plane infraction just a violation with team warning in all cases. But they didn't so I am bound to do it their way whether I believe that penalty to be too severe or not.