Intentional foul on throw-in
 

So we all know the rule about making contact with thrower or the ball on a throw-in. Intentional foul for contact on the thrower and a T for contact on the ball. I'm sure it's been discussed before, but don't you have to break the plane before contact can happen. So you would always have a delay of game warning before any of these other sits. happen. was having a disscusion with some other officials and was wondering your thoughts. Reasons for thoes other rules if you know of any. thanks

This Looks Like A Job For The ...
 

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.:)

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.

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.

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:D is this a dead horse?

Just Don't Call Me Late For Dinner ...
 

No I wouldn't. Not everything. This is just a CAT.

http://thm-a04.yimg.com/nimage/8540f002935f891a

Pet Peeve ...
 

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,
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.

Just touch, or foul?

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.:o

Isn't the definition of a foul illegal contact?

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

Much Appreciated ...
 

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.

Show Me On The Doll ...
 

Depends on where you touch them?

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.

Oh, Tish. That's French.
 

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)

I believe my thread has been hijacked.:p

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. ;)

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...........

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.

+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.

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.

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.

Administering Technicals
 

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.

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

"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."

Foul on thrower
 

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

Yep, or even a common foul.

I agree BNR. I was not offended that I called myself that name. Others however were and I will take into consideration others feelings above my own even if we dissagree. i will have to be care full when I use the word nerd as well.:p

Or even incidentally contact the thrower-in. ;)

Very rarely is the object of the word's use the person who is offended when it comes to this particular word.
The offense is the same as when the President said his bowling skills would put him in the Special Olympics (yes, it's a paraphrase). He was exhibiting self-deprecating humor, but at the expense (inadvertently) of a significant portion of our population.

I'm not saying which side of this fence I'm on, just explaining the fence.

I get that and respect that Snaq. Just trying to lighten the mood a bit. Life is serious enough as it is. BTW His bowling isn't the only thing that qualifies him.:D

Fair enough, I didn't mean to pile on. I think I'm a bit crabby today; channeling my inner Walter Mathau.

Where's My Pocket Protector ???
 

Hey. I find that offensive. If you give me a few minutes I'll use my nifty slide rule and tell you the percentage of posts that contain offensive words in this thread.

You will need more than a few minutes. :p Since I'm slow, can you guys tell me how you quote just part of a persons post. How do you highlight it as well. I'm such a beginner and you guys are so much cooler than me.

Happy Festivus For The Rest Of Us ...
 

The Sergeant is the guy on the right.

http://postworthy.com/ChristmasPictu...tChristmas.jpg

Just hit the "quote" button. You can then delete whatever you want out of the post. If you highlight a word, you can then click on B, for example, to make it bold.

In His Own Words ???
 

And you can even change what the poster really said.

I feel cooler allready. Not just because I live in AK.;)

LMAO. Good stuff.:D