Intentional foul on throw-in

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by deecee

Apropos.

That's an mbyron word.
What have you done with mbyron?
How much ransom do we have to pay for you to keep him? (Apologies to O. Henry)

[AKOFL]

I believe my thread has been hijacked.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Isn't the definition of a foul illegal contact?

Reaching through the boundary plane and touching the thrower is definitely illegal.

I feel awkward, 'cause you're normally correct on such things. But "illegal contact" isn't the entire definition. Contact does not necessarily equal a foul, even if he reaches across the plane.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I feel awkward, 'cause you're normally correct on such things. But "illegal contact" isn't the entire definition. Contact does not necessarily equal a foul, even if he reaches across the plane.

No need to feel awkward. Of course, there is more to the definition, but I didn't post it because I doubt that it is relevant in this case.

Since we have a live ball situation, let's examine the personal foul definition, excluding the airborne shooter part.

"A foul is an infraction of the rules which is charged and is penalized."

4-19-1 ...A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with
an opponent while the ball is live, which hinders an opponent from performing
normal defensive and offensive movements.

So in order for the foul to be charged and penalized, there must be illegal contact and that contact needs to hinder the opponent.

So how do we know if the contact hindered the opponent? I would argue that since the players of the non-thrower team are not allowed by rule to cross the boundary plane there is no possible way that the thrower can be expected to play through any contact while performing the throw-in. The contact itself changes the normal circumstances of the throw-in. Therefore, any touch by a defensive player in this case meets the definition of a foul.

At least that's my thinking.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

"A foul is an infraction of the rules which is charged and is penalized."

4-19-1 ...A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with
an opponent while the ball is live, which hinders an opponent from performing
normal defensive and offensive movements.

So in order for the foul to be charged and penalized, there must be illegal contact and that contact needs to hinder the opponent.

So how do we know if the contact hindered the opponent? I would argue that since the players of the non-thrower team are not allowed by rule to cross the boundary plane there is no possible way that the thrower can be expected to play through any contact while performing the throw-in. The contact itself changes the normal circumstances of the throw-in. Therefore, any touch by a defensive player in this case meets the definition of a foul.

At least that's my thinking.

I also believe that this was the intent, but I think it is a stretch to try to legitimize the wording. The defender, in theory, could slightly contact the throwers left arm as he makes a pass with his right arm. How is this a hindrance? It would be no trouble for the thrower to play through the contact. Furthermore, this slight contact might take place just as the thrower's teammate breaks free after which he slams home the winning dunk. Are we allowed to no call this contact?

If not, I suggest an editorial revision.

9-4-10 penalty: If an opponent.....reaches through the......boundary-line plane and contacts the thrower...........

[Jurassic Referee]

Some things that happen during a game call themselves. And this is one of them imo. If a defender reaches over the line and contacts the thrower, call an intentional personal foul. That's the purpose and intent of the rule, not whether a judgment call should be made as to whether the contact was illegal. If the rulesmakers really wanted us to adjudicate the situation that way, I'll guarantee you that we'd have seen a POE or case play to that effect by now.

Gee, guys, all we really need is the coach of the defending team hollering at us that his player didn't mean it and it shouldn't be a foul. Yup, we really need more arguments like that. Our job is just way too easy now anyway.

More paralysis by analysis.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Some things that happen during a game call themselves. And this is one of them imo. If a defender reaches over the line and contacts the thrower, call an intentional personal foul. That's the purpose and intent of the rule, not whether a judgment call should be made as to whether the contact was illegal. If the rulesmakers really wanted us to adjudicate the situation that way, I'll guarantee you that we'd have seen a POE or case play to that effect by now.

Gee, guys, all we really need is the coach of the defendering team hollering at us that his player didn't mean it and it shouldn't be a foul. Yup, we really need more arguments like that. Our job is just way too easy now anyway.

More paralysis by analysis.

+1.

The "no call because a player was breaking open for a layup" is a red herring here. You'd stop the game for a "breaking the plane" DOG warning anyway.

If the defense breaks the plane sufficient to contact the inbounder, call the foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

definition of retarded from merriam webster

sometimes offensive : slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress

its not an offensive word but sometimes people take it that way, in his use and context i think it was apropos.

You're wrong, it is offensive. Even Rham Emanuel learned that lesson this year. Use it if you want, but don't pretend it's not used and received offensively.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You're wrong, it is offensive. Even Rham Emanuel learned that lesson this year. Use it if you want, but don't pretend it's not used and received offensively.

It's offensive based on the context of its use. But the word alone, unlike certain curse words and racial epitaphs, is not offensive in and of itself.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It's offensive based on the context of its use. But the word alone, unlike certain curse words and racial epitaphs, is not offensive in and of itself.

Agreed; there are plenty of appropriate contexts for the word that aren't offensive. This wasn't one of them. I'm no Sergeant in the PC police, and I'm prone to inappropriate use of the word from time to time; but let's not pretend the word, as used here, isn't offensive to some.

[Gargil]

So excuse me in advance I am learning, If the player croosses the plane and contacts the ball it is a technical foul, if the team has already been warned for DOG that is a technical foul. One T assigned to player, one T assigned to Team. 4 freethrows and the ball?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Gargil

So excuse me in advance I am learning, If the player croosses the plane and contacts the ball it is a technical foul, if the team has already been warned for DOG that is a technical foul. One T assigned to player, one T assigned to Team. 4 freethrows and the ball?

No, one act gets one penalty. Assuming the team has already been warned, the only difference is whether it gets assigned to the player or the team. Either way, though, only one T and two shots.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It's offensive based on the context of its use. But the word alone, unlike certain curse words and racial epitaphs, is not offensive in and of itself.

I'm trying to imagine one of these. Maybe: "He was white; he'll be missed." Would that count?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm trying to imagine one of these. Maybe: "He was white; he'll be missed." Would that count?

"He was black; he was beautiful."

"He was pink
But he was a dink
Let him sink"


"Roses are red
Violets are purple
She was as sweet
As maple surple."

[habram]

Just keep in mind , and be watching very closely

If the thrower sticks the ball out across the plane , the defender may
touch the ball , knock it out of the hands or cause a held ball situation