No foul on thrower-in at end of game?
 

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.

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. :confused:

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.

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?

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.

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.

Right:
contacting thrower = INT
contacting ball = T

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

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.

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

Kicked this one.
 

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."

Thanks! Won't miss this one again.

Joined 6 years ago but this is your first post? Wow, you're a slow typist. ;)

BTW, it's "thrower," not "thrower-in."

Welcome aboard!

As others have said, owning a rule is a good thing. You never buy the same model again.

BktBallRef-

I'd consider myself more of a "voyeuristic" than a slow typist when it comes to the BB Forum. Having said that and knowing the warped sense of humor :D that some members have from reading the posts over the last six years, I am prepared for some great comments. I am now going to go back into the shadows for another six years.

In all honesty I have really enjoyed the forum. It has provided a great deal of practical info and very good discussions. Keep up the good work

Designated Spot ...
 

7.5.7 SITUATION D: Team A scores a field goal. B1 picks up the ball and steps
out of bounds at the end line to prepare for a throw-in. Before the throw-in is
completed, A2 is called for an intentional (or flagrant) foul on B3 near the end
line. RULING: B3 would shoot the two free throws for the intentional (or flagrant)
foul with the lane cleared. Team B will then have a designated spot throw-in on
the end line. (7-5-4b)

Correct in FED; the inbounder can run the end-line in NCAA, I think.

You are correct.

The NFHS made a change through a rules clarification a few years ago taking away the right to run following an intentional personal foul. I thought that it was a poor decision as the non-offending team loses something although the opponent did something illegal. That should never be the case.

The NCAA still allows the team to run the end line.

Ncaa-m & w?

afaik, Y

Thanks!