Inbounding - foul?

[eyezen]

Presented to me by a fellow official.

A1 inbounding ball on sideline. B1 right on top of sideline guarding A1's inbound.

A1 clears B1 with forearm to get space to inbound the ball.

What is the call?

I said it's got to be a foul and shoot Bonus is applicable (no TC-NFHS).

What got the discussion going was if it was inverted it would be an intentional personal.

Am I correct it would just be a common foul?

[JugglingReferee]

I don't recall reading anything that stipulates that an intentional or technical foul must be called, therefore I submit that a common may be issued. Shoot 'em if you got 'em.

[Da Official]

Question: Did A1 contact B1 out of bounds or did A1 reach inbounds to make contact?

If A1 contacted B1 out of bounds, I've probably got a delay of game warning (or Technical, if warning already given) on Team B for reaching OOB.

If A1 contacted B1 inbounds then, depending on the contact you may have a common foul on A1 with FTs if Team B is in the bonus or OOB spot if not.

Thoughts?

[Indianaref]

Interesting play if the contact happened on the inbound side of the throw in. This is a HTBT play. Live ball, defense crosses the throw-in plane it would be a delay of game warning on the defense. It would be a common, intentional or flagrant on the thrower if he crosses the throw-in plane.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by eyezen

Presented to me by a fellow official.

A1 inbounding ball on sideline. B1 right on top of sideline guarding A1's inbound.

A1 clears B1 with forearm to get space to inbound the ball.

What is the call?

I said it's got to be a foul and shoot Bonus is applicable (no TC-NFHS).

What got the discussion going was if it was inverted it would be an intentional personal.

No, it wouldn't be an intentional if inverted, as B1 is (I assume) standing in bounds.

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, it wouldn't be an intentional if inverted, as B1 is (I assume) standing in bounds.

Why not? B1 is inbounds and he fouls inbounder A1, it definitely is an intentional.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by eyezen

Why not? B1 is inbounds and he fouls inbounder A1, it definitely is an intentional.

Only if B1 reaches OOB and fouls A1. If B1 commits a foul without reaching OOB, it's only an intentional if it meets the other criteria.

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Only if B1 reaches OOB and fouls A1. If B1 commits a foul without reaching OOB, it's only an intentional if it meets the other criteria.

Well duh.

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by eyezen

A1 inbounding ball on sideline. B1 right on top of sideline guarding A1's inbound.
A1 clears B1 with forearm to get space to inbound the ball.
Am I correct it would just be a common foul?

Rule 7 section 6 Art 3
NOTE: The thrower shall have a minimum of 3 feet horizontally as in 1-2-2. If the court is not marked accordingly, an imaginary restraining line shall be imposed by the administering official.

the official should have made sure that the player had the required space - now mind you If the thrower can step backward and attain the space then the official does not have to move the defender off the line.

I would have an intentional personal foul on this, because if the situation is reversed it is an intentional personal foul.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by eyezen

B1 is inbounds and he fouls inbounder A1, it definitely is an intentional.

Yep, last night. Well played tight B13/15 game.

B scores and A1 is under the basket for the throw-in. B is in full-court, man-to-man press. I'm new T, and counting. B1 temporarily loses his man and discovers he's the inbounder. B1 runs several steps at top speed to guard the inbounding A1. B1 can't slow down, loses his balance and falls right out of bounds and into A1! CRASH! TWEET!

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Only if B1 reaches OOB and fouls A1. If B1 commits a foul without reaching OOB, it's only an intentional if it meets the other criteria.

rule nine section 2
Penalties art 11
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. true

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

I would have an intentional personal foul on this, because if the situation is reversed it is an intentional personal foul.

The problem with this logic: It is illegal for the defender to reach through the plane. It is not illegal for the offensive player to reach through the plane.

[deecee]

Another illogical thing about fouls by the players with the ball is that if he uses his arm to push the defender back why is that certainly NOT intentional? It would appear that if the defender shoves the offensive player we call that Intentional but if reversed we only call a common foul? Seems unfair dont you think?

[PSidbury]

Originally Posted by eyezen

A1 clears B1 with forearm to get space to inbound the ball.

I kind of agree with intentional foul.
If B1 is standing in-bounds and A1 reaches in-bounds to initiate contact, then A1's intent to make contact is "pre-meditated".
A1 could just as easily have "pre-meditated" a step back to get more space out of bounds.

If B1 had "broken the plane" OOB and then A1 made contact, I would agree with delay of game warning.

Thanks,
Paul

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by deecee

Seems unfair dont you think?

Last time I checked, "seems unfair" wasn't a criterion in deciding what to call intentional and what not to.

Book clearly states that if the defender reaches across and contact is made, it's intentional. No such rule is made about A1 making contact anywhere. So if defender is reaching across, even if A1 initiates contact, seems to me it's an intentional on defender, unless there's a DOG call prior to the contact. If A1 reaches inbounds to make contact, rules don't specify intentional, foul must be common (can't be PC because no TC). That's by the rules, and what "seems fair" to me doesn't much matter.