delay of game/throw-in

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Book's in the car, but is contact an automatic foul here?

Originally Posted by cdoug

Yes, automatic.

9-2-10 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."

I know a foul here is automatically intentional, that wasn't my question.
My question is whether "contact" automatically equals a foul in this case. Your rule quote above seems to answer that in the negative. Contact does not necessarily mean a foul must be called.

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I know a foul here is automatically intentional, that wasn't my question.
My question is whether "contact" automatically equals a foul in this case. Your rule quote above seems to answer that in the negative. Contact does not necessarily mean a foul must be called.

What other reason would the defender have to make contact with a player out of bounds on a throw in? If they reach across and contact the thrower in, its an intentional foul. Now, I normally tell players in this situation not to break the plain on a throw in......just my 2 cents.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by IREFU2

What other reason would the defender have to make contact with a player out of bounds on a throw in? If they reach across and contact the thrower in, its an intentional foul. Now, I normally tell players in this situation not to break the plain on a throw in......just my 2 cents.

I don't care about the reason. It's irrelevant.

If the contact doesn't affect the play, it's not a foul (by rule.) Just call the delay of game at this poing.

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I don't care about the reason. It's irrelevant.

If the contact doesn't affect the play, it's not a foul (by rule.) Just call the delay of game at this poing.

Think about it, if they reach across its a delay warning, but if they reach across and contact the inbounder is an intentional foul. The rule doesnt stipulate the degree of contact.....just contacting the inbounder is an intentional foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by IREFU2

Think about it, if they reach across its a delay warning, but if they reach across and contact the inbounder is an intentional foul. The rule doesnt stipulate the degree of contact.....just contacting the inbounder is an intentional foul.

No, the rule says fouling the inbounder is to be deemed intentional. It does not say "contacting."

[IREFU2]

Okay, your right and I know all contact is not a foul. So I recant my statement, but the original statement says the following:

A1 is inbounding. B1 reaches across the boundary line and contacts A1

B1 reaches across and contacts A1, thats a foul.

[chartrusepengui]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I don't care about the reason. It's irrelevant.

If the contact doesn't affect the play, it's not a foul (by rule.) Just call the delay of game at this poing.

If I have a 5 second count going and there is contact on the thrower - it has affected the play. No question intentional foul every time on my court. As stated before, I will tell defender to keep hands back or watch the line before giving ball to inbounder.

[Adam]

Really? B1 brushes A1's arm, causing no affect on A1's arm movement. You're going to an intentional foul on contact that wouldn't even warrant a personal foul in normal circumstances?

[chartrusepengui]

IMO - It isn't a "normal circumstance" once he reached through the boundry plane. They know that is illegal and if they truly didn't know - they will have learned something new and will be able to correct their play in the future.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You're going to an intentional foul on contact that wouldn't even warrant a personal foul in normal circumstances?

Maybe...depends on the contact. There is some contact that would be considered inadvertent on the court that would not be inadvertent on a inbounder (is that a real word?).

[Adam]

I think you mean "incidental," and I actually agree with that. That said, I think it would have to have an impact to call the intentional foul. I agree that impact may be easier to find on a thrower, though.

[referee99]

Contact inbounder, without fouling, DOG warning.
Contact inbounder, fouling said inbounder, intentional personal foul + DOG warning.
Contact ball in inbounder's hands is a technical foul on defender + DOG warning

--------------------------

bMac, I'll save you the trouble:

Who You Gonna Call ??? Mythbusters ...
A player inbounding the ball may step on, but not over the line. During a designated spot throwin, the player inbounding the ball must keep one foot on or over the three-foot wide designated spot. An inbounding player is allowed to jump or move one or both feet. A player inbounding the ball may move backward as far as the five-second time limit or space allows. If player moves outside the three-foot wide designated spot it is a violation, not travelling. In gymnasiums with limited space outside the sidelines and endlines, a defensive player may be asked to step back no more than three feet. A player inbounding the ball may bounce the ball on the out-of-bounds area prior to making a throwin. After a goal, or awarded goal, the team not credited with the score shall make the throw-in from any point outside the end line. A team retains this “run the endline” privilege if a timeout is called during the dead ball period after the goal. Any player of the team may make a direct throw-in or may pass the ball along the end line to a teammate outside the boundary line.

The defender may not break the imaginary plane during a throwin until the ball has been released on a throw-in pass. If the defender breaks the imaginary plane during a throwin before the ball has been released on a throw-in pass, 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.

The inbounding player does not have a plane restriction, but has five seconds to release the ball and it must come directly onto the court. The ball can always be passed into the backcourt during a throwin. This situation is not a backcourt violation.

[Adam]

Rotflmao!

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I know a foul here is automatically intentional, that wasn't my question.
My question is whether "contact" automatically equals a foul in this case. Your rule quote above seems to answer that in the negative. Contact does not necessarily mean a foul must be called.

NO warning for delay required here reflects that you do not have to issue the warning prior to making the call.

however I would assume that the warning comes with the call as is the action of reaching through the plane is violation, the NCAA specificall covers this in several sections to say the warning comes with the foul call.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

NO warning for delay required here reflects that you do not have to issue the warning prior to making the call.

however I would assume that the warning comes with the call as is the action of reaching through the plane is violation, the NCAA specificall covers this in several sections to say the warning comes with the foul call.

Agreed, but I've never contradicted this. NFHS also specifically states that if you call an intentional or technical for this, the warning is issued at the same time.