The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   delay of game/throw-in (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/50284-delay-game-throw.html)

Jburt Thu Dec 11, 2008 09:22am

delay of game/throw-in
 
I have searched through some past threads but haven't had any luck finding an answer. I also do not have my books with me at work...

60seconds on officiating got me thinking about this situation:
A1 is inbounding. B1 reaches across the boundary line and contacts A1

I know that is an intentional foul my question is: is a delay of game warning also issued for breaking the plane?

zm1283 Thu Dec 11, 2008 09:24am

Yes.

IREFU2 Thu Dec 11, 2008 09:26am

Beat me too it, its and intentional foul as well a delay warning.....so they get two for the price of one (NFHS)!

Adam Thu Dec 11, 2008 09:40am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jburt (Post 557282)
60seconds on officiating got me thinking about this situation:
A1 is inbounding. B1 reaches across the boundary line and contacts A1

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

cdoug Thu Dec 11, 2008 09:49am

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."

Adam Thu Dec 11, 2008 09:55am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 557293)
Book's in the car, but is contact an automatic foul here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdoug (Post 557298)
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 Thu Dec 11, 2008 09:58am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 557304)
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 Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:02am

Quote:

Originally Posted by IREFU2 (Post 557307)
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 Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:14am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 557311)
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 Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:15am

Quote:

Originally Posted by IREFU2 (Post 557314)
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."

chartrusepengui Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:16am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 557311)
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. :eek: 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 Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:18am

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?

IREFU2 Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:18am

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 Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:20am

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.

referee99 Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:21am

So, contact inbounder...
 
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:

Quote:

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 Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:25am

Rotflmao!

rockyroad Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:14am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 557322)
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 Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:18am

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.

Illini_Ref Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:33am

I have this understanding of this rule.

A opponent can never reach across and touch the ball BEFORE it is released. If it has been released it can be touched by reaching through the plane UNLESS it is NOT a spot throw-in.

Examples: A1 has a designated spot throw-in. A1 releases the ball on a throw-in. B1 reaches through the plane and contacts the ball while it is out of A1's hands. I have nothing here.

Now let's say the throw-in by A1 is after a made basket by B. Same thing occurs, I have a warning for breaking the plane.

This is the way this rule has been interpreted for me. Is this correct? I don't have access to a book right now, but I know that there is language in there about reaching through BEFORE the ball is released on a throw-in during a spot throw-in.

Adam Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:36am

Close. If the ball has been released for the throwin pass, B1 is free to reach across. It gets tricky on an endline throwin (or it could, anyway) because A1 might be throwing to a teammate standing OOB. If this happens and B1 reaches across, it's a violation. If A1 throws to a teammate inbounds, B1 may reach across.

just another ref Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:41am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 557368)
It gets tricky on an endline throwin (or it could, anyway) because A1 might be throwing to a teammate standing OOB. If this happens and B1 reaches across, it's a violation.

Actually, it's a technical.

Adam Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:49am

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 557371)
Actually, it's a technical.

Only if a) they've already been warned, or b) they hit the ball.

Either way, it's still under rule 9, violations.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jburt (Post 557282)
I have searched through some past threads but haven't had any luck finding an answer. I also do not have my books with me at work...

60seconds on officiating got me thinking about this situation:
A1 is inbounding. B1 reaches across the boundary line and contacts A1

I know that is an intentional foul my question is: is a delay of game warning also issued for breaking the plane?


JBurt:

Assuming you are talking about a game being played using NFHS Rules, if an official warning for any of the four delays listed in R4-S47 has not yet been issued to Team B, then an official warning shall be issued to Team B as well as the intentional personal foul charged to B1. Furthermore, if Team B had not yet been issued an official warning and instead B1 reached across the boundary plane and made contact with the ball, B1 would be charged with a technical foul and Team B would be issued an official warning.

MTD, Sr.

Jburt Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:31pm

thanks for your reply's and good discussion.

just another ref Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:31pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 557379)
Only if a) they've already been warned, or b) they hit the ball.

Either way, it's still under rule 9, violations.

The post prior to your involved contact with the ball, so I assumed that's what we were still talking about.

IREFU2 Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:34pm

The ball or the thrower-in???

OHBBREF Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:44pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 557304)
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 Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:53pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by OHBBREF (Post 557434)
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:32am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1