Testing all officials!!!

A1 inbounding the ball in the front court, B1 in front of A1 but not breaking the plain. A1 frustrated that he/she can't get the ball by the outstreched arms of B1, A1 reaches out and with one hand moves the arm of B1 and throws the ball in to A2. What do we have boys?

Hmmm
 

Unsportsmanlike conduct???? Technical Foul possible. Good question.

Intentional personal foul.

Re: Hmmm
 

Technical foul for illegal contact during a <b>live</b> ball? :confused:

Re: Re: Hmmm
 

I was shooting in the dark, not sure...I was looking through the rule book too. If you have a rule, please share!

Sounds like a plain old common foul to me. Live ball...no player control on a throw-in. Just a plain old foul on A1.

Z

No team control either on throw in, so spot out of bounds closest to the foul, Right or they could shot if they are in the bonus??

Re: Re: Re: Hmmm
 

Rule 4-19-1&3.

It meets the rules definition of both a personal foul and an intentional personal foul. I went with the intentional because of the language "neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position". It was a deliberate act used to gain an unfair advantage. I wouldn't really protest if it was called a regular personal foul though. It meets that definition also.

Yep.

Z

Personal foul on A1. Shoot the bonus if necessary.

If it is an intentional personal foul for B1 to reach through the plane and contact the thrower-in, the same penalty should exist for the reverse case.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm
 

JR:

You are sounding a lot like me. I guess it is going to be 80F tomorrow here in Toledo.

MTD, Sr.

Way to go Jurassic, Yes it is an Intentional Personal Foul

But this situation is more analogous to the thrower extending the ball through the plane and being fouled on his arm on the inbounds side of the plane by a defender.

The ruling on that play is a common foul because the contact occurs on the inbounds side of the boundary plane.

The contact on the play under discussion in this thread also occurs on the inbounds side of the boundary plane.

I believe that another aspect of the play is more important than the spacial location of the foul. I think it's necessary to rule on A1's intent. Clearly A1's actions are intentional by trying to thwart an opponent's obvious advantageous position: playing good inbound defense.

Edit: post editted at Nevada's request. Sorry about the mixup!

[Edited by JugglingReferee on Jan 23rd, 2006 at 10:51 PM]

JugRef,
First, please note that I did not make the original post and would appreciate it if you would edit your post to reflect that fact as I have done in this one. (I know which spelling of plane to use. :) )
Second, I am of the opinion that the argument presented in your final paragraph has merit. However, what I posted before was intended to refute the logic used in your first post, which is quite flawed. You may well reach the correct conclusion (I happen to not think so, but can't say for sure.), but the path taken to get there isn't a good one.
Third, I think that unless you are going to call an IPF on a play at midcourt when a player with the ball, who gets trapped and is looking to pass, purposely pushes the arm of a defender away in order to make an opening through which to throw the ball, then you shouldn't call the foul on this throw-in play an intentional either.

JMO

Oh yeah? How do you KNOW for sure? Do you have something from the NFHS?

Oh yeah? How do you <b>know</b> for sure it <b>isn't</b> an intentional foul? Do <b>you</b> have something from the NFHS?

The description given fits the criteria of both foul definitions(personal foul and intentional personal foul), Nevada, as I already posted. It now becomes a judgment call. If you think that it should be a personal foul, fine. That's your opinion. Is there any reason that you now can't respect the right of another official to have a differing opinion?

I can't speak for NevadaRef, but if Michigan Ref is going ot post this play and present a definitive (i.e., fact-based) answer, then I, too, would like to see a reference. If it's just his opinion that it's an IP foul, then I would appreciate that comment as well.

Hey now, I do give respect to the differing OPINION. I agree with JR that it is a judgment call. I even wrote that JugRef's post had merit, I just didn't agree with his conclusion.

However, as Bob said, I am certainly questioning MichOfficial's definitive answer to his "quiz" question. While I only have my opinion on reading of the rules to back my ruling, I wish to know what he has that makes him 100% right. If he's going to come onto this forum and tell us that something is a certain way, then he better be prepared to back up his statement.

That's all.

Not at all. They are similar in that they both break the throw-in plane. That was my logic. This logic (equal penalty for equal violation of the rules) is based upon fact. How can something be "quite flawed" when it is solely based upon fact? I just don't think you can stretch your argument that far.

While I agree that this point has some merit, I think the difference of not breaking a boundary plane is worth something. It may just have to be that this something is a player control foul instead of an IPF.

Done.

So...

If Michigan is the "Lil Tester," what does that make us? Lil Testees? :eek:

The flaw is that you are failing to put any emphasis on the fact that the DEFENDER is prohibited by rule from breaking the boundary plane on a throw-in, that in and of itself is illegal, while it is perfectly legal for the THROWER to cross the plane.

That is why I think that the reasoning put forth above is flawed. The reverse shouldn't be true because one player is allowed to break the plane according to the rules.

if the ball is live and we have a player oob that makes contact with a player who is in bound...why wouldn't this become a simple oob on A1 give it to B and go...

Wow, Seems this "LiL Tester" has stured some good conversation and has branched off into other areas. Lets remember what happened during this play and not what we think happened, so before we answer let read it all the way through and look at the intent of A1 and that should give us our answer.
Michigan Official

What in the world are you talking about? I read that A1 reached out and pushed B1's arm away. That's a pushing foul. I'm not "thinking" anything else into the play.

From your original post:

What was A1's intent? Clearly it was to move B1's arm out of his way so that he could throw a pass to his teammate.

Now are you saying that every time a player reaches out and pushes a defender's arm away, it should be an intentional foul because his intent was to move the defender's arm away?

How about a dribbler who pushes off with his off arm? How about a player making a V cut who pushes his defender away from him in order to get open to receive a pass from a teammate? Aren't these intentionals pushes? Are you contending that they should be ruled intentional fouls?

If we forget the throw-in aspect of the play and put this play just barely in the frontcourt near the division line and then the exact same events occur are you calling an intentional personal foul?

Could you please tell me exactly why you are certain that under NFHS rules this push should be ruled an intentional personal foul?

I seriously doubt that you are implying that only accidental pushes are common fouls and all purposeful pushes are intentional fouls, so what is your criterion?

Above, you have stated two elements, neither of which is what this thread is about. Perhaps you just made a typo? (That's what I think...) (Element 1, Element 2)

Yes, it is legal for the thrower-in to cross the plane. Yes, it illegal for the defender to cross the plane.

It might NOT be legal (that's why we are having this thread :D) for him to cross the plane and cause contact with B, especially when designed to nuetralize an opponent's skilled (and legal) defensive movements.

This thread is about A-initiated contact. It seems like you're now telling us that this is legal. If that is so, then why did you previously say otherwise:

Are you now changing your mind about the penalty? Hey, I don't mind if that's what you're doing, I just want to know.

Yup. He is allowed to break the plane. So let him break the plane. Don't let him break the plane AND foul someone! ;)

Ok, I will bite. Here's what I read...

<li>A1 is a thrower-in, luckily in his FC</li>
<li>B1 is playing defense, in front of A1, not breaking the plane</li>
<li>A1 initiates contact, displaces a B1 limb, to create a passing lane</li>
<li>A1 must have crossed the boundary plane because B1 has not</li>
<li>this passing lane was used to complete the throw-in</li>

<font color = red>1. In no way am I changing my mind or telling you that it is legal for A1 to cause illegal contact. I am merely pointing out that it is legal for him to break the boundary plane, while it is illegal for B1 to do so. Since we agree on all of that I will move on to the concluding point.</font>

Yup. He is allowed to break the plane. So let him break the plane. Don't let him break the plane AND foul someone! ;) [/B][/QUOTE]

<font color = red>Right! We agree on that, where we differ is on what is the proper penalty to assess to A1. Here is where the two elements from earlier come into play. The NFHS has deemed it to be an intentional personal foul if THE DEFENDER, B1, breaks the boundary plane prior to the release of the ball on a throw-in and fouls the thrower. It doesn't matter if the contact is a solid slap, a light touch on the wrist, or a purposeful holding of the thrower's arm; the penalty in ALL cases is automatically an intentional personal foul. (Of course, flagrant contact would cause a flagrant personal foul to be charged.) Why is this the case? The NFHS rationale for the more severe penalty of an intentional foul rather than just a common foul is that the defender has absolutely no business contacting that thrower in any way since he is specifically prohibited from breaking the boundary plane. So B1 has done two things wrong: break the plane AND commit a foul. Therefore, B1 gets slapped with a stiffer penalty than he normally would for committing a simple foul.
Now when we turn this around and A1 is the one who breaks the boundary plane and causes contact, he has only broken one rule, not two, because it is legal for the thrower to penetrate the boundary plane. So why should the NFHS stick him with an intentional foul for his contact? He should be penalized for his illegal contact on its own merits and nothing more. That is why I contend that he should merely be charged with a common personal foul on the play in this thread. Now, I admit that there certainly are cases in which the thrower could be charged with an intentional foul, but that would depend upon what exactly he did. I don't see pushing an opponent's arm out of the way as rising to the level of an intentional foul. If one argues that he is negating an opponent's obvious advantageous position, then one would have to assert that the defender guarding the thrower on a throw-in always has an obvious advantageous position because this is the way that they always start out. That is ridiculous. The NFHS would never consider that to be the case simply because the rules are designed to create an equal balance of play between the offense and the defense. Therefore, the placement of the players for a throw-in can't be said to put one side in an obvious advantageous position. This isn't like wrestling where one guy has to take a position down on all fours!

That is the best way that I can explain my stance.



All text in red in this post was written by Nevadaref.</font>


[Edited by Nevadaref on Jan 24th, 2006 at 08:36 AM]

And girls.

Rita

I understand your point more clearly, now.

I believe that A is allowed to break the plane for the purposes of completing the throw-in, and for no other reason whatsoever.

If the reason he breaks the plane is to do something that is already penalized (a foul), then he clearly has abused that provision. I think we need to consider penalizing more than just the foul... we need to penalize the intent as well. Not as flagrant, just as intentional. (Although it could be flagrant.)

In this case, A1 clearly abused that privilege to foul. He is using a provision for a reason other than it's intent, and that causes personal contact. My vote is to rule as intentional.

I guess a argument can be made for both sides, agree?
This is how I viewed it,( personal opinion )

1.Is the ball live? Yes
2.Are the actions of A1 accidental? No
3.Does A1 cause illegal contact? Yes
4.Is the contact by A1 intentional? Yes

There for I would call an intentional personal foul.
* If you choose not to agree I can live with that, that is
our right as officials to agree to disagree.

I wonder what the other JR would say about your belief. I happen to believe that you are reading too much into the rule instead of just taking it at face value. All the rule says is that the thrower may penetrate the plane. It does not say why or why not.


Although you have explain why you believe this to be so very nicely, I can't agree. I think that the foul is the only thing that the player did which was wrong, and so it is the only thing for which he should be penalized.
The foul should be judged on its own merit, not complicated by anything else.


If the foul itself is intentional or flagrant, I have no problem with that, otherwise I advocate just calling a common foul.

Perhaps the FED will come out with a case play or an interp and settle this for us.
Nice debate. Thanks.

Although you have explain why you believe this to be so very nicely, I can't agree. I think that the foul is the only thing that the player did which was wrong, and so it is the only thing for which he should be penalized.
The foul should be judged on its own merit, not complicated by anything else.

As I read this statement I cant help but wonder why you make the statement that the only thing the player did wrong was the foul. That is and was the only thing in question, so for someone to say that the player just commited a common foul is crazy. The player intentionaly moved the defender out of the way to gain an advantage.
Players intent- Intentional