this happened last night in a hs jv boys game. Ball is being put in play in frontcourt on sideline opposite table. Defense reaches across plane and puts hand on the chest of player with ball. My partner calls a technical... coach complains that it should be a warning.. rule book states that if there is contact with the thrower but no contact with ball- it should be an intentional personal foul. Any thoughts? does reaching out and touching -not pushing- constitute the personal foul? It was an interesting game last night- definitely a learning experience- power failure 5x, the last one being at the 3 min mark in second period. Power comes back on and game mngmt decides with coaches approval to play the last three minutes- skip halftime and play 3 & 4.

You said it yourself. Intentional foul. What's your question?

on a related subject
 

Back in November(?) I posted a thread on a situation where I gave the warning and then called the T in a boys varsity game with 1 second left. The coaches of the offended team went nuts. The next time I talked to the assignment secretary he told me not to "make any more of those two-bit
calls." He also told me several times that "technically, you were right," but went on to explain that "you have to give them a little something," or something like that. When I posted the question here, I believe that everyone who answered said that they would have called it the same way. I am still annoyed and confused by this issue. What about it? Does anyone else consider this a "two-bit" call?
When the defender is over the line up to his armpits do you simply ignore it or repeatedly warn and tell him to back up or what?

I give the delay of game warnings, I call the intentional fouls, and when contact is made with the ball I whack'em. I don't believe this is a "two-bit" call. The defender is puttin the thrower at an obvious disadvantage. If the coach doesn't want this to be called, then he should teach his players how to properly guard on an inbounding play.

Re: on a related subject
 

Maybe your assignor thought you could have prevented the second delay of game violation with some preventative officiating? Even though you were technically correct, that's a crummy way to end a game don't you think?

If you take a little time to put the fear of God (apologies to you atheists) into a defensive player in that situation, you can usually (always?) keep them from breaking the plane. "Hey 24, your team already has a warning plane violation so it's going to be a technical foul if you break this plane that I'm showing you right here... understand?"

Z

Re: on a related subject
 

jar, you were right. But do what your assignor wants.

Of course, that coach could tell you to learn how to properly administer a technical foul in a tied game after the end of the fourth quarter! :D

But he probably isn't smart enough. ;)

I think the question is: Is it an "intentional foul" based on the mere fact that the thrower was touched? kmw knows that the T was improper, but s/he is wondering whether the intentional foul is proper on a touch, or whether contact that would otherwise be a foul is what creates the "intentional foul" call. I don't have my books in front of me, and I'd like to know if I am right or wrong, but I think if I had a light touch I'd be calling the delay warning. Of course, it depends on how the touch was actually done (had to be there, etc.), and I can see making an intentional foul call short of common foul standards. I guess my point is that I'm *looking* for a delay call first, and only giving the intentional foul where necessary. (And so, I guess my question is the same as kmw's: does *any* touch on the thrower make an intentional foul call "necessary"?).

thanks bgtg for help in clarifying
 

the question. That was my point... if the thrower is touched does that constitute a personal foul or can I "get by" with just calling the warning. As for my game scenario- less than a minute left in game- home team losing by two, now with the t called, they will shoot two and get the ball back. Not a fun spot to be in.

Re: thanks bgtg for help in clarifying
 

If there is physical contact, it <b>HAS</b> to be an intentional personal foul. That's what the rule says. Rule 9-2-12PENALTY4 is very explicit. If you try to get by with just calling a warning, and it then costs a team the game, how are you gonna explain that little mis-application of the rule?

Follow the rules, guys, and don't try to make up your own. Don't over-think these plays. There is nothing in the rulebook that would let you call anything but an intentional personal foul in this case.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 24th, 2005 at 10:46 AM]

Re: Re: thanks bgtg for help in clarifying
 

You <b>always</b> have the option of calling the violation/warning.

Before a defender can possibly touch the thrower on the OOB side of the line or touch/dislodge the ball on the OOB side of the line, that defender must first cross the line.

Since the ball is dead when a violation occurs, the ball is dead at the moment the defenders hand crosses the line (if you choose to call it).

All that said, I think this arguement doesn't preclude the T or the intential foul...just gives us the option.

Re: Re: Re: thanks bgtg for help in clarifying
 

If we had the option, there would not be the penalties for contacting the ball or the thrower.;)

Re: Re: Re: thanks bgtg for help in clarifying
 

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

That's completely wrong, Camron.

Re: Re: Re: Re: thanks bgtg for help in clarifying
 

Anybody want popcorn? My treat...

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: thanks bgtg for help in clarifying
 

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.
<HR>
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.
<HR>
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.
<HR>
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.

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.

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.

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]

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).

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.

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.:D

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.

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.

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]

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

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?"

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.