Defense reaching through plane on throw in.
 

Basic rules question.

At a camp I attended, I was told this.
1. On a throw in by Team A, defender reaches throuh the boundry plane. Delay or game warning (or T if there had already been a delay warning).
2. Same play, but defender strikes ball while still in thrower's hand. Technical
3. Same play, but defender strikes arm of opponent-Intentional foul.

During a game, I had situation #3 and call it intentional. Partner said it should have been a technical. Looked through rule book and couldn't find situation #3.

Please clarify and show rule or case book reference.
NFHS rules only.

Thanks,
DD

You are correct; your partner was wrong. Live ball contact (with the possible exception of fighting) is a personal foul, not a technical foul

here is pertinent section of rule book...thanks to middle tennessee assn for putting it out there :D

SECTION 2 THROW-IN PROVISIONS

A player shall not violate the following provisions governing the throw-in. The thrower shall not:

ART.1...Leave the designated throw-in spot until the ball has been released on a throw-in pass.

ART.2...Fail to pass the ball directly into the court from out-of-bound so it touches or is touched by another player (inbounds or out-of-bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched.

ART.3...Pass the ball so it is touched by a teammate while the ball is on the out-of-bounds side of the throw-in boundary-line plane.

ART.4...Consume five seconds from the time the throw-in starts until the ball is released on a pass directly into the court.

ART.5...Carry the ball onto the court.

ART.6...Touch the ball in the court before it touches or is touched by another player.

ART.7...Throw the ball so it enters the basket before it touches or is touched by another player.

ART.8...Throw the ball so it lodges between the backboard and ring or comes to rest on the flange before it touches or is touched by another player.

No player shall:

ART.9...Replace the thrower after the ball is at the thrower's disposal.

ART.10...Be out of bounds when he/she touches or is touched by the ball after it has been released on a throw-in pass.

Furthermore:

ART.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.

NOTE: The thrower may penetrate the plane provided he/she does not touch the inbounds area before the ball is released on the throw-in pass. The opponent in this situation legally touch or grasp the ball. See penalty.

ART.12...No teammate of the thrower shall be out of bounds after a designated-spot throw-in begins.

PENALTY: (Section 2) The ball becomes dead when the violation or technical foul occurs. Following a violation, the ball is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in at the out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation.

(ARTICLE 11 only)

1. The first violation of the throw-in boundary-line plane by an opponent(s) of the thrower shall result in a team warning for delay being given (one warning per team per game). The warning does not result in the loss of the opportunity to move along the end line when and if applicable.

2. The second or additional violations will result in a technical foul assessed to the offending team. See 10-1-10 Penalty.

3. If an opponent(s) of the thrower reaches through the throw-in boundary-line plane and touches or disloges the ball, a technical foul shall be charged to the offender. No warning for delay required. See 10-3-12 Penalty.

4. If an opponent(s) of the thrower reaches through the throw-in boundary-line plane and fouls the thrower, an intentional personal foul shall be charged to the offender. No warning for delay required.

Another Myth Bites The Dust ...
 

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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

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

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

No. Intentional personal foul only.

Even <B>after</B> the first warning has already been recorded?

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?

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">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.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

WOW, I can't believe that experience referees are still unclear on this.

JR is right. Contact with either the ball or the thrower on the OOB side of the plane constitutes a technical foul or an intentional foul AND a team warning if one has not been previously given. If there has already been a warning, then only the T or intentional foul is penalized.

10.3.11 SITUATION C: Team A scores near the end of the fourth quarter and is trailing by one point. B1 has the ball and is moving along the end line to make the throw-in. A2 steps out of bounds and fouls B1. Is the foul personal or technical? RULING: This is an intentional personal foul. The time remaining to be played or whether Team A had been previously warned for a delay-of-game situation is not a factor. If the team had not been warned, the foul constitutes the warning. (4-19-1; 9-2-11 Penalty 4)

10.3.11 Situation D: A1 is out of bounds for a throw-in. B1 reaches through the boundary plane and knocks the ball out of A1's hands. Earlier in the game, Team B had received a team warning for delay. RULING: Even though Team B had already been issued a warning for team delay, when B1 breaks the plane and subsequently contacts the ball in the thrower's hand, it is considered all the same act and the end result is penalized. A player technical foul is assessed to B1; two free throws and a division line throw-in for Team A will follow. The previous warning for team delay still applies with any subsequent team delay resulting in a team technical foul. (4-47; 9-2-10 Penalty 3; 10-1-10)

Yes. You penalize the complete act.

There are 3 different illegal acts by a defender on throw-ins:
1) Reaching through the plane without contact. The penalty is a warning the first time, followed by a "T" for subsequent occurrences. Rule 9-2PENALTIES(Art.10)1 & 2.
2) Reaching through the plane and contacting the ball. The penalty is a technical foul charged to the defender. Rule 9-2PENALTIES(Art.10)3.
3) Reaching through the plane and contacting the thrower.The penalty is a an intentional personal foul charged to the defender. Rule 9-2PENALTIES(Art.10)4.

Don't read anything into the play that isn't there.

The only exception(5 seconds or less remaining in the game) is listed in case book play 9.2.10.

That's the one that I was thinking of.

Ok, I'm glad this is clear for Fed. As I admitted before, I wasn't entirely sure about the Fed. ruling, but I suppose I've gotten it confused with the NCAA-W ruling. I'm fairly certain if there has already been a warning recorded for a boundary plane infraction, the next time a player reaches through the plane, it is a T even if there is contact with the thrower. The other issues are the same - before a warning is issued, if a player reaches through and contacts the ball, it is a T, or contacts the thrower it is an intentional personal, and in both cases the foul also constitutes the first warning.

Just as a point of discussion, why would the Fed. consider the second reach-through and contact with the player an intentional personal, while ignoring the the action that happened first - reaching through the plane to get to that player? Before the warning is issued, they agree both actions are recognized - the warning for reaching through, and the end result (T for contact with the ball, intentional for contact with the player). What if the player trys to contact the thrower, misses, then fouls them on the second swing?

1) I think that's wrong too. Afaik, the NCAA Wimmens rulings are exactly the same as the FED rulings. See NCAA AR 83 and AR214(1).

2) As per the case book play cited above....10.3.11SitD....<i>"It is considered all the same act and the end result is penalized."</i> If the end result is contact on the thrower, call the intentional personal foul.

Yep, I went back and read the in-season interps, and you are correct. The emphasis was on only issuing one penalty after the warning had been given, which I have no problem with. The example given was the same as the Fed. case play, where, after a warning to team A, A1 reaches through the boundary and contacts the ball, thereby resulting in only one T. My confusion was assuming the T was for the boundary infraction, not the contact on the ball. The next example was the contact on B1, which results in (only) the intentional.

I just bought some propane this past weekend, so I've got plenty to cook that damn crow I'm having for dinner tonight...

Perhaps you are light-headed from the gas. ;)

Ok so here is a slight twist that I need your help with. Thrower is standing 3 feet off the line as I hand the ball into him. Defender is standing up almost on the line but not breaking it (yet). Thrower televised his pass that he was about to make across the key and defender starts to move along the baseline that direction. The ball is released from throwers hand. Defender reaches across the line (out of bounds) and slaps the ball down towards his own feet inbounds, gathers the ball and tweet. I blew my whistle and gave the team its first warning.

The coach argued later that because the ball was released out of the throwers hands it was ok. I still see the defender reaching across the line. (Of course the coach also argued that the ball was in play when touched by the defender, who knows maybe he did have a better look at it from center court then I did from the baseline 6 feet away.)

Still a illegal act even though the ball left the throwers hands correct?

If the pass was intended to go a teammate inbounds, the play was legal....once the ball is released on an intended throwin, the defense is free to defend it. However, if it was to a teammate who was (or was about to be) OOB in order to execute the throwin, it should have been a T.


RULE 9, SECTION 2 THROW-IN PROVISIONS
ART. 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.

RULE 10, SECTION 3 PLAYER TECHNICAL

<DD>A player shall not: <DD>ART. 12 . . . Reach through the throw-in boundary-line plane and touch or dislodge the ball as in 9-2 Penalty 3.




</DD>

Three clarifications:
1. There is a difference between the NCAA and the NFHS rules on this.
2. Was this a pass to an OOB teammate after a made goal and a time-out? Camron poses this scenario.
3. Was this a throw-in pass that was heading into the court?

Answers:
1. In the NCAA the defender can not reach across the plane until the ball breaks the OOB line. In NFHS the defender can reach across as soon as the throw-in pass is released from the thrower's hands.

2. If this was an OOB pass between teammates after the opponent scored, which likely it was not since you handed the ball to the thrower, then it is a technical foul for the defender to break the plane and contact the ball in both the NCAA and NFHS rule sets.

3. If this was a throw-in pass heading to an inbounds teammate, then your play was legal at the high school level (NFHS), but illegal at the college (NCAA) level. See #1.

Easy. This is a technical foul for using television equipment during the game!! :)

In all seriousness, I think Camron provided you with an excellent answer.

Oh sure, give him all the credit. :(

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?