[NFHS] Is there room for judgement on this

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

Unless it's committed against the person throwing the ball in! OP didn't specifically say it was away from the ball.

I think Juulie hit the nail right on the head here. If the foul occurred after the ball was at the disposal of the inbounder but before the inbound pass was made, it's a pretty safe bet the inbounder was fouled which, by rule, is an intentional foul. The OP said he did not see what the official saw, so this probably was it. The only thing that doesn't fit this is that the C made the call.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

I think Juulie hit the nail right on the head here. If the foul occurred after the ball was at the disposal of the inbounder but before the inbound pass was made, it's a pretty safe bet the inbounder was fouled which, by rule, is an intentional foul. The OP said he did not see what the official saw, so this probably was it. The only thing that doesn't fit this is that the C made the call.

The fact that the OP said he didn't see the actual foul leads me to believe it was not the inbounder who was fouled. Everyone is watching the thrower on this play.

Further, the part in red is not necessarily true. It is not the nature of the player (inbounder or thrower) that causes this to be intentional, it's the location of the contact with respect to the OOB plane.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Further, the part in red is not necessarily true. It is not the nature of the player (inbounder or thrower) that causes this to be intentional, it's the location of the contact with respect to the OOB plane.

Yes, and also whether the ball has been released.

[SperlingPE]

The foul was not comitted on the inbounding Team A player.
The foul was committed by Team B on a Team A player away from the ball.

[tjchamp]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The fact that the OP said he didn't see the actual foul leads me to believe it was not the inbounder who was fouled. Everyone is watching the thrower on this play.

Further, the part in red is not necessarily true. It is not the nature of the player (inbounder or thrower) that causes this to be intentional, it's the location of the contact with respect to the OOB plane.

I want to make sure I understand this correctly. After a made basket, the throw in team has a second person OOB, maybe waiting to receive a pass (not the thrower at this point). If a defender fouls this non-thrower, are we to call an intentional foul on this, or could we call a common foul. 9-3-10P4 indicates: If an opponent(s) of the thrower reaches through the throw-in boundaryline plane and fouls the thrower, an intentional personal foul shall be charged to the offender. No warning for delay required.

[Adam]

I'd say on an end line throw-in, any offensive player standing outside of the appropriate end line is a "thrower."

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'd say on an end line throw-in, any offensive player standing outside of the appropriate end line is a "thrower."

4-42-1: The thrower is the player who attempts to make the throw-in.

If he doesn't have the ball, he is not attempting to make the throw-in.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

4-42-1: The thrower is the player who attempts to make the throw-in.

If he doesn't have the ball, he is not attempting to make the throw-in.

If we're going to get technical and literal here, by your definition he ain't a thrower until he actually attempts to make the throw in pass. Until I see a case play, interp, or rule change that clearly delineates the thrower as the person with the ball on an end-line throw-in for purposes of the rule in question, I'm considering them all throwers and fouls committed against them on the OOB side of that plane will be considered intentional.

It seems to me the rule is written with a spot throw-in in mind, but I could be (and have been) wrong.

It seems to me the intent is to come down hard on defenders who reach across and foul a player; splitting hairs on who's a thrower and who isn't seems a bit extreme. IMO of course.

Personally, I don't think a player needs to have the ball to attempt the throw in any more than having the ball makes him the thrower. It would be more accurate to say he's not a thrower if he throws the ball to a teammate out of bounds on this particular play.

[SperlingPE]

This is starting to go in different directions.
This was a spot throw-in following a violation by Team B. The designated spot was off to the side of Team B's basket (in Team A's backcourt).
The foul was committed by a Team B player on a Team A player who was in bounds, prior to the ball being inbounded. The thrower had the ball in his possession and the official had started the 5 second count (the ball was at the disposal of the in-bounder).

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tjchamp

I want to make sure I understand this correctly. After a made basket, the throw in team has a second person OOB, maybe waiting to receive a pass (not the thrower at this point). If a defender fouls this non-thrower, are we to call an intentional foul on this, or could we call a common foul. 9-3-10P4 indicates: If an opponent(s) of the thrower reaches through the throw-in boundaryline plane and fouls the thrower, an intentional personal foul shall be charged to the offender. No warning for delay required.

Strictly by the rules as written, you are correct.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

If we're going to get technical and literal here, by your definition he ain't a thrower until he actually attempts to make the throw in pass. Until I see a case play, interp, or rule change that clearly delineates the thrower as the person with the ball on an end-line throw-in for purposes of the rule in question, I'm considering them all throwers and fouls committed against them on the OOB side of that plane will be considered intentional.

It seems to me the rule is written with a spot throw-in in mind, but I could be (and have been) wrong.

It seems to me the intent is to come down hard on defenders who reach across and foul a player; splitting hairs on who's a thrower and who isn't seems a bit extreme. IMO of course.

Personally, I don't think a player needs to have the ball to attempt the throw in any more than having the ball makes him the thrower. It would be more accurate to say he's not a thrower if he throws the ball to a teammate out of bounds on this particular play.

I have to believe that this is how the NFHS committee intends the rule to be enforced. Therefore, they should amend the rule to note that this applies to all players from the throwing team who are OOB behind the end line during a throw-in following a goal or awarded goal.