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?

Yes.

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

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

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.

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.

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."

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.

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?

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.

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.

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:

Rotflmao!

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?).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

thanks for your reply's and good discussion.

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

The ball or the thrower-in???

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.