Intentional foul on throw-in

[BillyMac]

Mythbusters.

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.

[AKOFL]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Mythbusters.

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.

Why do they have these rules since they come after the breaking of the plane. Have no problem with the rule or calling it. We were just trying to get the thought process behind it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

We were just trying to get the thought process behind it.

The thought process is that you penalize the complete act, not each part of the act.

1) If the complete act is breaking the plane, it's a DOG warning(first time).
2) If the complete act is reaching through the plane and then touching the ball in the thrower's hand(s), it's a technical foul.
3) If the complete act is reaching through the plane and then touching the thrower, it's an intentional personal foul.

Different penalties for different acts.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

3) If the complete act is reaching through the plane and then touching the thrower, it's an intentional personal foul.

Just touch, or foul?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Just touch, or foul?

Isn't the definition of a foul illegal contact?

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

[BillyMac]

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.

Depends on where you touch them?

[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.

[Mark Padgett]

Think of it this way. If it's a "continuous act", then you call the technical for hitting the ball or the intentional personal for fouling the player. If you didn't call it that way, you'd never have either of those calls because you'd call everything as just a DOG.

[AKOFL]

Ok. I must be retarded and can't ask the question the right way. I under stand how to call it and have called it before. Just want to know if anyone has some insight as to why they went beyond just the DOG for breaking the plane. Were people taking freeshots at the inbounder? Did they come up with these penalties to protect the inbounder? Again I have no problem with the rule. we were just talking about it and though it was funny that you would have something penalized after a initial infraction. (break plane before contact) If I am still not making any sense let me know is this a dead horse?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

I must be retarded.

AKOFL: Not a real big deal, but I can't just stand back and say nothing. Political correctness sometimes goes way too far, but in this case would you please consider using another adverb. Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive?

The King will reply, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for Me." (Matthew 25:40)

[AKOFL]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

AKOFL: Not a real big deal, but I can't just stand back and say nothing. Political correctness sometimes goes way too far, but in this case would you please consider using another adverb. Thanks.

The King will reply, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for Me." (Matthew 25:40)

I meant nothing by it. My cousin uses it all the time. I am very sorry. I have a nephew who is downs so my wife is after me to not use that word any more too. Consider it removed from my vocabulary just like spelling is.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

I meant nothing by it. My cousin uses it all the time. I am very sorry. I have a nephew who is downs so my wife is after me to not use that word any more too. Consider it removed from my vocabulary just like spelling is.

I'm actually on the fence about using the word, or not. It just seemed out of place in your post. I'm working the Special Olympics Unified Games in a few weeks and I'm sure that I will be referring to the "retarded players" and the "helpers" (their teammates without intellectual disabilities). I'm trying, but after a lifetime of using the word "retarded" to refer to those with intellectual disabilities, it's hard to change. Thanks.

[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.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

Ok. I must be retarded and can't ask the question the right way. I under stand how to call it and have called it before. Just want to know if anyone has some insight as to why they went beyond just the DOG for breaking the plane. Were people taking freeshots at the inbounder? Did they come up with these penalties to protect the inbounder? Again I have no problem with the rule. we were just talking about it and though it was funny that you would have something penalized after a initial infraction. (break plane before contact) If I am still not making any sense let me know is this a dead horse?

AKOFL,
I won't comment on the "r" word as it seems to be politically incorrect to do so in this context, but allow me to give your question a shot. In a way, this situation is no different from the situation in which a defender initially goes up to block a shot and then continues on to make significant contact resulting in an intentional foul. You don't stop evaluating the play when the initial contact is made, you stay with the play and penalize accordingly i.e. with an intentional foul.

The play you describe is a quirk. I have had the very same discussion concerning this very play. It is similar to attempting to explain to a rookie official that a step into a jump stop is NOT a travel immediately after you explain to the rookie official that the first foot to land is the pivot foot AND the pivot foot CANNOT land BEFORE the ball is released for a pass or try otherwise the player is guilty of a travel.

Don't try to logically work through the play as it is not logical. It IS, however the RULE. As JR would say, Rules Rulz. Some rules make logical sense, others not quite so much. In this case, the NFHS wants us to protect the inbounder with this play via rule. If the player merely violates the plane, the play ends there. IF you, as the administering official IMMEDIATELY sound the whistle PRIOR to the contact, you can call a team technical foul for a second delay of game. For example, if the defender quickly put his hand through the plane, pulled it back. You could sound your whistle as soon as the first act happens. However, in most cases, the player reaches through the plane and makes contact so quickly that we have no choice.