OOB intentional foul questions
 

NF rules. If, on a throw-in, a defender reaches across the boundary and fouls the inbounder who has the ball, it's an intentional foul by rule. What about these situations - is the call still automatically intentional if B1 fouls A1?

1) A1 has stepped OOB to make the throw-in but the official has not yet given him the ball and A1 is fouled by B1

2) A1 has the ball OOB and is holding it across the boundary line over the court and B1 fouls him on a part of his arm that is (2a) over the court or (2b) not over the court

3) team B scores and A1 "gathers" the ball to take it OOB but delays going OOB but the official determines the ball is at the disposal of team A and has started a 5 second count when A1 is fouled by B1

4) here's a real doozy - A1 has the ball OOB and B1 reaches over the boundary and simultaneously fouls A1 on the shoulder with one hand and slaps the ball with the other - do you call the intentional personal foul or the technical foul or both - guys, if this ever happens in your game, make sure you post the video

1. This is a foul during a dead ball period. Whether the contact is inbounds or OOB, it is subject to the same standard. The official must deem the contact to be at the level of an intentional or flagrant foul or is must be ignored.

2a. Common foul. The defender did not break the boundary plane.
2b. Intentional foul by rule.

3. Common foul as in 2a. Same reason: the defender did not break the boundary plane. We don't know who will be the thrower in this situation. It could be the player currently holding the ball, but it may not. This foul is no different from any other foul committed inbounds during a throw-in.

4. Technical foul. When a player simultaneously infringes two rules, apply the harsher of the two penalties as a sanction.

There seems to be an exception to this concept.
1. DOG warning for Team B already on the books.
2. B1 reaches across the plane and slaps A1's (the thrower) arm. My understanding is you would go with the player inentional here rather than the team technical. Which penalty is more harsh is, I suppose, debatable due to the fact that B1 actually gets assessed the intentional if you go that route.

I don't think that one can consider prior actions when applying this principle.
So it is just a case of DOG warning vs. IPF.
One can't say that a play is an IPF one time, but a TF the 2nd time. That is why the rule is written as it is.

3. What I left above is irrelevant. The foul occurred on the inbounds side of the boundary line. As such, it doesn't matter if it is the thrower or not.

4. There is no rules basis for that conclusion aside from requring the official to determine which occured first. By rule, if they were simultaneous, both are to be penalized. That said, I hope the official would pick one or the other...but there is no rules guidance on which to pick.

Sure there is. It is just in the FIFA Laws of the Game. :D

Disagree. Penalize the "total" action.

So what do you mean by that? Are you saying to penalize both the IPF and the TF as they amount to the "total action"?

Are you really going to assess two fouls on this play? :eek:

You are aware that my statement was not for the case of a boundary plane warning and then contact with either the thrower or the ball in his hands, right?

The "total action" was the foul. Enforce that. No T in this instance for a second delay violation.

Okay, now I'm certain that you didn't read the OP properly. We aren't talking about a 2nd delay warning. We are talking about contacting the ball while it is in the hands of the thrower.

I thought we'd moved on and were talking about reaching across and slapping the thrower's arm, after a warning had been issued.

Does anyone have a rule reference on 2a?

As already stated, you have no rules basis for that conclusion. Pick one act to penalize. It's that simple.

ncaaref is bringing up this 7 month old post because this is one of the questions on the NCAAW's test this year.

And, I agree with him, that it doesn't seem to be covered in the NCAA book (or, that the rule doesn't distinguish between a foul "in bounds" or "oob" on an inbounder)

QUOTE=bob jenkins;697179]ncaaref is bringing up this 7 month old post because this is one of the questions on the NCAAW's test this year.

And, I agree with him, that it doesn't seem to be covered in the NCAA book (or, that the rule doesn't distinguish between a foul "in bounds" or "oob" on an inbounder)[/QUOTE]

Exactly Bob and as stated in Rule 4.29.d5 5. Contact with a player making a throw-in. (Women) This act shall
also serve as a team warning for reaching through the boundary.

It is really not clear because the first part does not say that the defender reached through the boundary plane and the second part says that there should be a warning issued for reaching through the boundary plane. It needs to be much more clear.

In picking the harsher one to penalize, didn't he just do exactly what you suggested? Pick one act to penalize.

If you are going to pick one act as you suggest, how do you propose selecting which one to penalize? Flip a coin?

Who cares how you pick? Or what you pick either? What difference does it make? Just pick the penalty that you think is appropriate. But there is NO rule anywhere that states that you SHOULD apply the harsher penalty every time as Nevada inferred. That was my point, such point which was obviously misunderstood by you.

Given that I was the one who, 7 months ago, originally stated there was no rules basis for alway picking one or the other, I'm quite aware there is no rule that says to pick the harsher penalty. Your point was understood....long ago. However, his solution is still as valid of a solution as any.

Just curious - what would you have if the thrower, with the ball at his disposal, as he is attempting to inbound the ball, reaches across and pushes the defender to assist him in inbounding the ball?

Intentional personal.

+1

Penalizing both is akin to double jeopardy.

Besides, there's not a whole lot of "harsher" either way. IPF or TF, it's still two free throws and the ball. Yes, there's a few other differences (choice of shooter, spot of throw-in, counting toward DQ), but they seem minor in this whole equation.

I disagree that the differences are minor. T is halfway to DQ and possible suspension, and the choice of shooter is a big deal; especially since a lot of teams use a big man (typically poorer FT shooters than the guards) to throw-in the ball following a score.

Personally, I have no idea which I'd choose without seeing the game or the play itself.

How is this any different from an inbounds player and pushing a defender back in order to get a pass off?

I'm not sure that I see this an intentional foul. (I'm not certain its not either).

Might be the way I'm picturing it, but I see a difference between creating space when the defender is on top of you and reaching across the line to create space when there's already space there.

I've never seen a defender up against a thrower on a throw-in, and when the thrower simply has to step backwards (an option not available on the court), it's simply not a "basketball play," IMO.

This part of the post is now moot, as the committee this year made it an intentional foul regardless of whether the inbounder has broken the plane or not.

If this is a solid push, then you have a choice between a team control foul (new this year during a throw-in) and an intentional personal foul. If there is not much contact, one could go with the following NFHS interp.

The NFHS issued an interpretation last season which has no basis in the rules book, in fact the part is red is simply wrong by rule, but here it is:

Basketball Rules Interpretations - 2009-10

Publisher’s Note: The National Federation of State High School Associations is the only source of official high school interpretations. They do not set aside nor modify any rule. They are made and published by the NFHS in response to situations presented.

Robert F. Kanaby, Publisher, NFHS Publications © 2009

SITUATION 1: A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in and is being guarded by B1. Before releasing the ball, A1 loses his/her balance, reaches out and puts his/her hand on B1 (who is inbounds) in an effort to regain his/her balance. RULING: Throw-in violation by A1. A1 is required to remain out of bounds until releasing the throw-in pass. When A1 touches an inbounds player, he/she now has inbound status. However, if the contact on B1 is illegal, a personal foul should be called. COMMENT: A throw-in violation must be called in order to maintain the balance between offense and defense. (2-3; 9-2-1; 9-2-5)

So, with that ruling, we could call a throw in violation on the thrower when the defender contacts the thrower who has extended their arm across the throwin plane while holding the ball but such contact doesn't warrant a foul??? ;););):p (as opposed to the newly minted and also unsupportable intentional foul for the fouling the thrower in the same situation.)