Throw in question

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

10.3.10 SITUATION D: A1 is out of bounds for a throw-in. B1 reaches through
the boundary plane and knocks the ball out of A1’s hands. Earlier in the game,
Team B had received a team warning for delay. RULING: Even though Team B had
already been issued a warning for team delay, when B1 breaks the plane and subsequently
contacts the ball in the thrower’s hand, it is considered all the same act
and the end result is penalized. A player technical foul is assessed to B1; two free
throws and a division line throw-in for Team A will follow. The previous warning
for team delay still applies with any subsequent team delay resulting in a team
technical foul. (4-47; 9-2-10 Penalty 3; 10-1-5c)

I agree....as long as the ball is still live...and it really is the same act.

This case exists to get around the dilemma that exists wherein a defender can't actually touch the ball without first breaking the throwin plane. If the relevant rules were taken literally, you would never be able to get to the T. I don't believe this case is intended to apply to two separate and independent motions/acts.

Remember that in the posted situation, the whistle was being blown for B1's original swat at the ball that missed (perhaps retreating to the inbounds side of the line) after which B1 swatted again and hit the ball....two clearly separate acts.

[Nevadaref]

I believe that the NFHS doesn't want us to parse the actions. If the defender breaks the plane and contacts the ball in the thrower's hands, no matter how many times he swipes at it, then charge the T.

Take the defender's entire actions collectively and penalize the end result.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I believe that the NFHS doesn't want us to parse the actions. If the defender breaks the plane and contacts the ball in the thrower's hands, no matter how many times he swipes at it, then charge the T.

Take the defender's entire actions collectively and penalize the end result.

Again, this case is merely to get around the delimma of the fact that, technically, the violation must always come before the T....that when the act that casues violation also causes the T, we go straight to the T, ignoring the violation. They are not asking us to combine multiple actions into one but to define that one motion that has two results....both breaks the plane and also contacts the ball...is to be considered as one act with the penalty based on contacting the ball. They are not asking us to wait to see if the defender ultimately hits the ball before the throwin is complete so we can tag them with a T.

[Nevadaref]

Given that is your opinion, then we disagree.

I'm picturing a defender waving and swinging both arms as he attempts to impede the throw-in. If in doing so he swipes with one arm and breaks the boundary plane, but does not touch the ball with that hand, or perhaps he happens to place a foot OOB, but follows this quickly with a swing by the other arm which contacts the yet to be released ball, then I'm assessing a technical foul and believing that I'm correct by rule. I'm taking the entirety of his actions collectively and penalizing the result.

I seriously doubt that the rule writers intent was for an offender to get off with a lesser penalty because of a small time difference. That's not within the spirit of the game or a sense of justice.

[Hugh Refner]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I believe that the NFHS doesn't want us to parse the actions. If the defender breaks the plane and contacts the ball in the thrower's hands, no matter how many times he swipes at it, then charge the T.

Take the defender's entire actions collectively and penalize the end result.

I hope you don't mean you'd wait for him to swipe a bunch of times to see if he makes contact before you'd blow your whistle.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Hugh Refner

I hope you don't mean you'd wait for him to swipe a bunch of times to see if he makes contact before you'd blow your whistle.

In an NCAA mens game I certainly would because that's the rule.

At the HS level it would matter to me by how much the defender was breaking the boundary plane. If it was trivial, you can bet that I would ignore it. If he took a couple of big swipes which were obviously in violation of the rule, but failed to make contact, then I'm calling a violation.

What I'm not going to do is allow the offending player/team to suffer less of a penalty than deserved by taking a microscopic view of the rule. If he takes a third swing while I'm preparing to sound the whistle and whacks either the player or the ball, then he's getting the more severe penalty for that.

[Texas Aggie]

I have a patient whistle on these things. If the defender accidentally reaches across the line and immediately pulls back, I've got nothing. I'm not saying he has to stay over the line for an hour, but I think the unfair advantage theory works well here -- did the defender disrupt the offensive player by his short stay over the line?

The other good thing about a patient whistle is that if the OP situation occurred, you'd probably have the contact with the ball prior to the whistle, which would make the call easy -- a T.

[BillyMac]

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.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

If the defender accidentally reaches across the line and immediately pulls back, I've got nothing.

Please explain how someone could "accidentally" reach across the line. Do you use the same logic (or lack thereof) if someone "accidentally" fouls someone else? What if they "accidentally" push someone into a wall on a breakaway? Do you still have a "patient whistle" to see if they lose consciousness before you blow your whistle?

I don't mean to come across as harsh, but I really don't see using the term "accidentally" here, and I don't see where it matters.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Please explain how someone could "accidentally" reach across the line. Do you use the same logic (or lack thereof) if someone "accidentally" fouls someone else? What if they "accidentally" push someone into a wall on a breakaway? I don't mean to come across as harsh, but I really don't see using the term "accidentally" here, and I don't see where it matters.

One thing that I've learned from this Forum is, "Accidental isn't always incidental". Who first came up with that?