Why do you think it's stupid? :confused:

What page in the case book? Thanks for the bread crumbs:)

ANY contact with the thrower in is an IT. Contact with the ball out of bounds is a tech. I don't believe a warning is required for that. the warning would be for simply breaking the plane.

I would not asses a T and a warning and I should double check the books but I don't think they mention it done that way either.

The player has a legitimate and legal right to play/touch/grab the ball when it is over the court. Why should it become an intentional foul to miss and contact the arm? At no other time does a failed attempt to legally to touch the ball that results in contact automatically become an intentional foul.

Additionally, this was NOT a rule change, it was classified as an editorial change. Yet, there was absolutely nothing in the former rules that could have been suggested that it would have been intentional. In fact, it was pretty clear that it wasn't. This was not an editorial change, but a rule change....editorial changes clarify previous rules that were ambiguously written or incomplete.

To be consistent, they should have either left it alone or changed the throwin rule to also prohibit touching the ball while it was still in the hands of the thrower regardless of the location of the ball.

I'm issuing the warning and T...use the case book play mentioning the intentional foul as guidance if you need.

Camron:

I couldn't have said it better myself. This has become a problem ever since the late Dick Schindler retired as Rules Editor. It is my belief that the NFHS people who are in charge of the rules of the game do not do their due diligence with respect to research exisiting casebook plays and rules interpretations and in some respects do not know the history of the rules nor do they take the time to study the histor of the rule.

Now back to the USA-Brazil basketball game in the Pan-American Games; yes I know The Baseball Game is on. ;)

MTD, Sr.

Camron stated it perfectly.

I agree.

1) Contact with the inbounder (aka "thrower-in") is an IP, not an IT.

2) If the contact (with the ball or the inbounder) happens in the same act as breaking the plane, it's BOTH the foul AND the warning.

Nah, just someone who has trouble spelling. ;)

Who You Gonna Call ???
 

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6230/...473e048e_m.jpg

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 delay 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 delay warning will be recorded. If the defender breaks the imaginary plane, and fouls the inbounding player, it is an intentional personal foul, and a team delay warning will be recorded. It is an intentional personal foul if the defender fouls the inbounding player, even without breaking the imaginary plane, however, in this specific case, there is no delay of game warning because the defender did not break the boundary plane.

Page 88 in the case book

I don't see it as that big of a deal. They've simplified the rule. We don't have to concern ourselves with whether the thrower's arms were extended beyond the plane or on which side of the plane the contact occurred. Basically, it's almost impossible to be 100% accurate on such a play.

Further, the next time I have to call a foul on a defender for fouling the thrower will be the first time in my career.

Like I said, it aint that big of a deal.

I would have the same number as you if I had to call it.

But we're still left with the same decision if they touch the ball....one side is a T, the other is legal.

My biggest contention is they didn't simplify it at all...they just moved the point of confusion. If they were going to change it, they should have changed both situations such that touching the ball would also be illegal regardless of where the ball is.

Not sure what the point of confusion is. I'm not confused. They simplified one rule and didn't simplify the other. Not the first time that's happened.

One is now simplified but the other remains more complex. For me, better to have one simple and one complex than have two complex rules.

And again, the next time I have a defender touch the ball on the court side will be the first time.