FED Reaching Through the Plane

[letemplay]

If this action (foul) occurs prior to any warning, is the act itself now also a warning for a later plane violation?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by letemplay

If this action (foul) occurs prior to any warning, is the act itself now also a warning for a later plane violation?

Yes, 10.3.10 Situation C.

[Danvrapp]

Originally Posted by letemplay

If this action (foul) occurs prior to any warning, is the act itself now also a warning for a later plane violation?

I thought for sure contact was an automatic intentional this year, being pre-warned or not? Don't have my book(s) handy, but if anyone does and could offer a ruling (even proving me wrong) I'd appreciate it!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Danvrapp

I thought for sure contact was an automatic intentional this year, being pre-warned or not? Don't have my book(s) handy, but if anyone does and could offer a ruling (even proving me wrong) I'd appreciate it!

The intentional foul never required a warning.

This year, they added a stupid measure that makes it an automatic intentional regardless of whether the defender even reaches across the plane.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This year, they added a stupid measure that makes it an automatic intentional regardless of whether the defender even reaches across the plane.

Why do you think it's stupid?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Why do you think it's stupid?

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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 agree.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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 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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Why do you think it's stupid?

Camron stated it perfectly.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Danvrapp

I thought for sure contact was an automatic intentional this year, being pre-warned or not? Don't have my book(s) handy, but if anyone does and could offer a ruling (even proving me wrong) I'd appreciate it!

The contact is an IP, but that's not new this year. It ALSO serves as the warning, if the contact happens on the OOB side of the plane. That's also not new this year.

What is clarified this year is that contact on the IB side of the plane (i.e, over the court) is an IP, but does NOT serve as a warning.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Danvrapp

I thought for sure contact was an automatic intentional this year, being pre-warned or not? Don't have my book(s) handy, but if anyone does and could offer a ruling (even proving me wrong) I'd appreciate it!

It is an INT foul. But you also report a delay of game warning because the defender broke the plane. That's what letemplay was asking.