Defense reaching through plane on throw in.

[BillyMac]

The defender may not break the imaginary plane during a throwin. If the defender breaks the imaginary plane during a throwin, the defender’s team will receive a team warning, or if the team has already been warned for one of the four delay situations, this action would result in a team technical foul. If the defender contacts the ball after breaking the imaginary plane, it is a player technical foul and a team warning will be recorded. If the defender fouls the inbounding player after breaking the imaginary plane, it is an intentional personal foul, and a team warning will be recorded.

[daggo66]

I am a football official who coaches basketball. In a recent AAU tournament there was limited room for a throw in from near the scorer's table. The defender was lined up by the official to be approximately 3 feet back and was told not to move closer nor to break the plane. However, the offensive player was allowed to run through that area between the defender and the sideline to receive the pass. That didn't seem fair. How should this be treated?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by daggo66

I am a football official who coaches basketball. In a recent AAU tournament there was limited room for a throw in from near the scorer's table. The defender was lined up by the official to be approximately 3 feet back and was told not to move closer nor to break the plane. However, the offensive player was allowed to run through that area between the defender and the sideline to receive the pass. That didn't seem fair. How should this be treated?

It was handled correctly. If an offensive player enters that space a defender may do so as well.

7.6.4 SITUATION D: The sideline is very near the spectators leaving little space out of bounds for A1 to make a throw-in. As a result, the administering official has directed B1 to move back a step to give the thrower some room: (a) as soon as the ball is handed or bounced to A1, B1 moves right back to the boundary line in front of A1; or (b) A1 attempts to complete the throw-in just inside the boundary line and B1 moves to his/her original position in order to defend. RULING: In (a), it is a violation by B1 and will also result in a warning for Team B which is reported to the scorer and to the head coach. Any subsequent delay-of-game situation or noncompliance with the verbal order will result in a technical foul charged to Team B. In (b), B1 is expected to stay back one step unless the throw-in is attempted between this area and the boundary line. No violation in this case as B1 is allowed to defend the area if the throw-in is attempted there. (10-1-10)

[Adam]

I've always treated the restraining line as a defacto boundary line, and have called an offensive throwin violation when A2 crosses it.

AAU? I'll move them off the scorer's table for the throwin, too.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I've always treated the restraining line as a defacto boundary line, and have called an offensive throwin violation when A2 crosses it.

AAU? I'll move them off the scorer's table for the throwin, too.

This whole situation has never been precisely clear to me. It seems that there is a difference between the imposition of an imaginary line by the administering official and a physical restraining line painted on the court.

In the first case, the case book play clearly says that the inbounds space between the imaginary line and the OOB line can be legally used. In the second case the 1-2-2 along with reference to 7-6-4 make the case that this area is off limits until the ball has crossed over the restraining line.

So my question is should the two cases really be treated differently in practice?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This whole situation has never been precisely clear to me. It seems that there is a difference between the imposition of an imaginary line by the administering official and a physical restraining line painted on the court.

In the first case, the case book play clearly says that the inbounds space between the imaginary line and the OOB line can be legally used. In the second case the 1-2-2 along with reference to 7-6-4 make the case that this area is off limits until the ball has crossed over the restraining line.

So my question is should the two cases really be treated differently in practice?

Well, I was conflating the two, it seems. The violations I've called have all involved the actual painted restraining line. I can see the distinction, though, in that the painted line should be easier for everyone to adhere to.

I just noticed that the case play does not reference a rule that grants the authority used in the case play. Is there one, or is the one of those instances where the rules have been amended via a case play?

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It was handled correctly. If an offensive player enters that space a defender may do so as well.

[/COLOR][/B](10-1-10)

Unfortunately we were unaware that the defender may enter that area if the offensive player does. They basically used our defender on the throw-in as a screen.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... If the defender fouls the inbounding player after breaking the imaginary plane, it is an intentional personal foul, and a team warning will be recorded.

What if the team has already received a delay of game warning. Will they be assessed an intentional foul and technical foul in this situation?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

What if the team has already received a delay of game warning. Will they be assessed an intentional foul and technical foul in this situation?

Think of the play in "slow motion" - what happened first? Since the player had to break the plane in order to make contact, the T should be called for breaking the plane, and the ball becomes dead. Then the contact should be ignored, unless you see it as excessive or flagrant.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Think of the play in "slow motion" - what happened first? Since the player had to break the plane in order to make contact, the T should be called for breaking the plane, and the ball becomes dead. Then the contact should be ignored, unless you see it as excessive or flagrant.

That was my thinking initially. But if we say that then wouldn't the same apply if this were the first infraction? Also, if we give B1 tech for breaking the plane that's a harsher penalty then he/she would get for actually making contact with A1, which would only be an intentional foul.

I think what we have here is a conundrum.

My point being: Though very unlikely that a player would have this much forethought, but if he/she realizes the he/she has broken the plane after their team has already received a DOG warning then he/she would better served to actually make contact with the inbounder and avoid the 'T'.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

That was my thinking also. But if we say that then wouldn't the same apply if this were the first infraction?

Well, I know in NCAA-W, you would penalize the intentional foul, and that infraction would also count as the first warning. I would think the same logic could be applied to NF as well.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

That was my thinking initially. But if we say that then wouldn't the same apply if this were the first infraction? Also, if we give B1 tech for breaking the plane that's a harsher penalty then he/she would get for actually making contact with A1, which would only be an intentional foul.

I think what we have here is a conundrum.

My point being: Though very unlikely that a player would have this much forethought, but if he/she realizes the he/she has broken the plane after their team has already received a DOG warning then he/she would better served to actually make contact with the inbounder and avoid the 'T'.

How is the T a "harsher" penalty?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

How is the T a "harsher" penalty?

My bad...I was thinking the 'T' is charged directly to the player, but it's a Team Technical in HS and Administrative in NCAA. Someone earlier in the thread stated the 'T' is charged to the individual for contacting the ball and that was still sticking in my head.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Think of the play in "slow motion" - what happened first? Since the player had to break the plane in order to make contact, the T should be called for breaking the plane, and the ball becomes dead. Then the contact should be ignored, unless you see it as excessive or flagrant.

Think of it this way....that's completely wrong.

You penalize it as per rule9-2PENALTIES(ART10)4. It's an intentional personal foul only.

Somewhere there's a FED ruling that was issued on that exact play.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Think of it this way....that's completely wrong.

You penalize it as per rule9-2PENALTIES(ART10)4. It's an intentional personal foul only.

Somewhere there's a FED ruling that was issued on that exact play.

Even after the first warning has already been recorded?