Intentional foul on throw-in

[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.

[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.