Inbounding - foul?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

So the alert official should blow the whistel instantly upon the defnder reaching in and call the violation or warning thus avoiding the intentional foul or causing an intentional technical becuase the ball is now dead?

If the defender commits the foul, you call the intentional foul. If the defender breaks the plane, and then the thrower makes contact, I say you call the violation/technical foul.

The other reason to call the foul intentional is that it would not be a basketball play to push a defener out of the way with the arm or ball to gain an advantage to inbound the ball?

This, of course, is a judgment call. I just say that the throw-in has nothing to do with the call in this case. If you call this intentional, it would be a foul that you would call intentional if both players were inbounds.

The above discussion brings the following to mind. Intentional is perhaps not the best name for this type of foul. Intentional usually means "on purpose."
Yet by definition, many actions on the court which are done "on purpose," will never result in an intentional foul call. Conversely, intentional foul is the proper call for some things which were obviously not done "on purpose."

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The above discussion brings the following to mind. Intentional is perhaps not the best name for this type of foul. Intentional usually means "on purpose."
Yet by definition, many actions on the court which are done "on purpose," will never result in an intentional foul call. Conversely, intentional foul is the proper call for some things which were obviously not done "on purpose."

Especially on this particular situation that comment is very apt.

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If the defender commits the foul, you call the intentional foul. If the defender breaks the plane, and then the thrower makes contact, I say you call the violation/technical foul.

My point however facitous was that the defender has to break the plane to comit the foul. So the enforcment of both seems to be overkill and had a prior warning been issued you could have two technicals for one action.

and while some have said fai has nothing to do with it I desagree we are asked to make similar calls on similar plays so I am thinking this would be one of those scenarios.

[Juulie Downs]

But OHBHRUIFLEEF they're not similar plays. One has a set of rules prescribed for it, and the other does not. Can't get much more dissimilar than that.

Also, for the ball-handler to push away the arm of the defender, is indeed a basketball play. You'd NEVER call it intentional if that same motion happened inbounds, unless it was for excessive roughness.

FOM is, this sitch shouldn't happen. DOG should be called as soon as defender reaches across. If there's enough time of the defender having body parts oob that the ball-handler feels that he has to reach out and push body parts away, ref isn't doing his/her job.

Unless in the OP, the contact happend on the inbound side of the plane. Then the ball-handler is an idiot and deserves to be called for a common foul.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

My point however facitous was that the defender has to break the plane to comit the foul. So the enforcment of both seems to be overkill and had a prior warning been issued you could have two technicals for one action.

You don't enforce both, and you don't have two Ts. Enforce the "final action" only. See the case book.

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You don't enforce both, and you don't have two Ts. Enforce the "final action" only. See the case book.

I agree Bob
But the issue I was trying to get across was that you had to see and consider the whole play and make the call other wise you could end up with a whole lot more on your hands than you barganed for.