No foul on thrower-in at end of game?

[Dennis Bronco]

I am trying to remember if I read about this situation on this forum.
With less than 5 seconds in the fourth quarter and the clock running, A1, whose team is ahead by one point, has the ball for a throw-in. B1 reaches across the plane and either knocks the ball out of A1's hands or fouls A1. I thought the officials were supposed to ignore the fouling attempt (unless it is obviously flagrant) and just let the clock run out. Is that's correct, what is the rule or case? I think the case may be from many years in the past. Thanks much.

[Mark Padgett]

Ya' know, while this sounds like something a coach or maybe Billy Packer might say, I think there actually was a case play about this a while ago.

Of course, I might be thinking of that case book I got from the aliens.

[Adam]

No, the case play says to ignore the "violation" of crossing the plane unless it actually interferes with the thrower's efforts to make a throwin. In that case, go directly to technical foul, do not pass Delay of Game Warning.
It says nothing about ignoring an actual foul.
Case play 9.2.10, still in there.

[DesMoines]

Had this play earlier this year. Less than 5 seconds, clock running, so B1 just steps across end line and wraps up thrower.
Tweet. T.
B1 looks at me, shrugs, and says, "What else was I supposed to do?"

[Adam]

Originally Posted by DesMoines

Had this play earlier this year. Less than 5 seconds, clock running, so B1 just steps across end line and wraps up thrower.
Tweet. T.
B1 looks at me, shrugs, and says, "What else was I supposed to do?"

Why the T and not the intentional? Did you go team T or player T?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, the case play says to ignore the "violation" of crossing the plane unless it actually interferes with the thrower's efforts to make a throwin. In that case, go directly to technical foul, do not pass Delay of Game Warning.
It says nothing about ignoring an actual foul.
Case play 9.2.10, still in there.

Yep - that's it. Of course, the alien case book says you are supposed to turn the violator into a cereal box, or something like that.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, the case play says to ignore the "violation" of crossing the plane unless it actually interferes with the thrower's efforts to make a throwin. In that case, go directly to technical foul, do not pass Delay of Game Warning.
It says nothing about ignoring an actual foul.
Case play 9.2.10, still in there.

I know you're being jocular here, but you don't want to give the impression that you'd skip the DOG warning that must come with the INT/T in this situation.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Why the T and not the intentional? Did you go team T or player T?

Right:
contacting thrower = INT
contacting ball = T

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Right:
contacting thrower = INT
contacting ball = T

Yep, and crossing the line is simply a Team T (not assessed to the player).

[DesMoines]

I went Team T. They'd already had a DOG warning and Team T for knocking the ball away after a score so they could set up for their press. Upon reflection, I suppose I could (and maybe should) have gone INT, but thought that since the action was a delay, that's where I went.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by DesMoines

I went Team T. They'd already had a DOG warning and Team T for knocking the ball away after a score so they could set up for their press. Upon reflection, I suppose I could (and maybe should) have gone INT, but thought that since the action was a delay, that's where I went.

Fair enough, I was wondering. I can make a lot of similar "upon reflection" statements.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by DesMoines

I went Team T. They'd already had a DOG warning and Team T for knocking the ball away after a score so they could set up for their press. Upon reflection, I suppose I could (and maybe should) have gone INT, but thought that since the action was a delay, that's where I went.

I understand your way of thinking about this, but you didn't make the correct ruling. You'll nail it next time.

[DesMoines]

Yep. We talked about it in our postgame. No one even questioned it at the time, but I knew I hadn't gotten it quite right. We should have recorded the INT on the B1, had A1 shoot two empty (rather than any player), then gone back to the end line.
Next question, can he move on the inbound? No, right?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by DesMoines

Yep. We talked about it in our postgame. No one even questioned it at the time, but I knew I hadn't gotten it quite right. We should have recorded the INT on the B1, had A1 shoot two empty (rather than any player), then gone back to the end line.
Next question, can he move on the inbound? No, right?

Spot throw-in. 7.5.7D

Rule 7-5-7b says "common foul."

[DesMoines]

Thanks! Won't miss this one again.