boundary plane question

[kmw]

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by kmw
rule book states that if there is contact with the thrower but no contact with ball- it should be an intentional personal foul.

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

[just another ref]

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?

[ref18]

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.

[zebraman]

Originally posted by just another ref
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?

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

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by just another ref
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?

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

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by ref18
...If the coach doesn't want this to be called, then he should teach his players how to properly guard on an inbounding play.

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!

But he probably isn't smart enough.

[bgtg19]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

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

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"?).

[kmw]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by kmw
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.

If there is physical contact, it HAS 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]

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
If there is physical contact, it HAS 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.

You always 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.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

You always 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.

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

You always 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.

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

That's completely wrong, Camron.

[rainmaker]

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.

Anybody want popcorn? My treat...

[Ref Daddy]

http://www.officialforum.com/thread/17439