FED Reaching Through the Plane
 

B has previously been warned for reaching through the plane on a throw-in (or, for that matter, any of the other three warnings). B2 reaches through the plane on a throw-in and contacts A1.

Ruling? (I'm pretty sure I know this) Reference? (Couldn't find it last night in the meeting since the lights were off for the slide show, and forgot my books this morning)

Thanks

I cannot find a specific ruling or case play as to whether it should be a Team Tech or an Intentional Foul.

Intentional foul. I just looked quickly and can't find the case play, but we've always penalized the contact if it's there. For example, if there has been no previous warning, and B1 reaches through the plane and contacts the thrower-in, we don't assess the warning (because it happened first) and ignore the contact. We assess both the warning and the intentional foul (or technical foul, if B1 contacts the ball, rather than the thrower-in).

I think your situation would be the same. Penalize the contact, but not the breaking of the plane.

I'm incline to agree with Scrappy. If a player were to reach through the plane and touch the ball with a prior warning, we would issue a single techincal foul for the end result of the act. I see this as being the same thing, penalize the end result.

In the definitions of rules under section 19, addressing intentional fouls:

Rule 4-19-3e "Contact with a thrower-in as in 9-2-10 Penalty 4 " ......

Rule 9-2-10 under penalties: " 4. If an opponent(s) contacts the thrower, an intentional personal foul shall be charged to the offender. No warning for delay required. "

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.

Just found the reference. 10.3.10 Situation D.

Guess I didn't dig deep enough. :o

Of course if Nevada were assessing the situation I'm just a lazy official. :D

Thanks.

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.

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.

Nice Citation Scrapper1 ...
 

10.3.10 SITUATION D: A1 is out of bounds for a throw-in. B1 reaches through
the boundary plane and knocks the ball out of A1’s hands. Earlier in the game,
Team B had received a team warning for delay. RULING: Even though Team B had
already been issued a warning for team delay, when B1breaks the plane and subsequently
contacts the ball in the thrower’s hand, it is considered all the same act
and the end result is penalized. A player technical foul is assessed to B1; two free
throws and a division line throw-in for Team A will follow. The previous warning
for team delay still applies with any subsequent team delay resulting in a team
technical foul. (4-47; 9-2-10 Penalty 3; 10-1-5c)

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.

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.

It is not my intent to put words in Camron's mouth but I think what he is saying is that the Rules Committee is not being consistent in their logic and reasoning. As I have stated in the past people at the NFHS and who sit on the Rules Committee, too often, just do not do their homework when proposing and passing changes to the rules. That is all I am going to say becasue it is too early in the morning to get riled up and the Rules Committee Chairman is an OhioHSAA Administrator.

MTD, Sr.

Here's another wrinkle to consider:
I have been taught that the hand is considered part of the ball when the hand is in contact with the ball. This includes holding, dribbling, passing, or even during a shot attempt. Striking a ball handler or a shooter on that player's hand that is incidental to an attempt to play the ball is not a foul, no matter how loud it sounds or how much it hurts.

I understand that if the ball is held out of bounds, then any contact with the ball would be player technical foul. Got it.

However, if the thrower has the ball on the inbounds side of the line, and there is contact on his hand like describe above, is it still an intentional foul??? If so, then that just reinforces Camron's reasoning why this is inconsistent.

That statement, while a good guideline, and potentially helpful, is not always correct, and not what the rule says.

Did I know write, "They simplified one rule and didn't simplify the other. Not the first time that's happened"?

Rule 10-6 ART. 2

A player shall not contact an opponent with his/her hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt to play the ball.

4-24-2 It is legal use of the hands to reach to block or slap the ball controlled by a dribbler or player throwing for goal or a player holding it and accidentally hitting the hand of the opponent when it is in contact with the ball.

I don't see what is so complicated about all this. They made it as clear as possible. There is no room for debate or personal preference. This is as black and white as an out of bounds call. Contact with the thrower in by an opponent is an IF. Contact with the ball OOB while in the hands of the thrower in is a T.

It's stated in black ink on white paper. Who cares what other rules say elsewhere? IF A happens penalize with option 1. IF B then use option 2, etc.

There is no mention for use of judgement as there would be in dead ball contact situations. The rule says TO NOT CONTACT THE THROWER IN. Where is the grey area?

I agree with that.

My issue is they changed one part of the throwin restrictions and not the other. The rules are far easier if they consistent....they were before and now they're not.

They also called it an "editorial" change. It was not...it was a rule change in disguise.

Yeah, but I don't think into things that much I guess. Its not my place to make this avocation any more complicated than it need be. If the rules give such a black and white rule I just take it as face level.

A well written set of rules would apply the same principles to similar situations. That makes them simpler and makes the job of the officials simpler as a result. Indirectly, it generally make for a better game as everyone can understand the rules rather than having to memorize hundreds of variations of scenarios that can't be derived from basic concepts.

Camron, in an ideal world I would agree with your statement. But when, in reality does it ever work so. Basketball is a complex game that involves a lot of moving parts that we, as officials, must oversee.

IF one rule says something and another one offers an exception to the first rules penalty or adjudication, then I am not going to stress over it. I'll let the rules committee deal with it. Arguing, back and forth, the validity of the exception and the confusion that the rules MIGHT cause only adds to confuse many officials.

In this case the rule is simple and black and white. I like that as IT SHOULD provide a more uniform application of how the FED wants it addressed. I also think it's a very simple variation that doesn't require a PhD to comprehend. Some officials will screw it up. Then again some officials screw up the most basic of rules time and time again.

So, in short, I agree with your statement that the rules should be simpler and not contradict one another. However, in cases where there is a lack of uniformity, and clear direction is given, debating the validity of the penalty doesn't serve much good, unless there is someone from the FED here who would listen and consider a revision.

Truth be told. How often does this come up? In my almost 10 years, maybe a handful of times. And even though the breaking of the plane rule is written as black and white I think there is grey as to how and when the DOG/warning should be penalized.

Similar situation but instead of contact we have a breaking of the plane by defender after a warning was give to team for delay. Is this a TEAM TECHNICAL?

You don't penalize a player with a technical for a delay when the TEAM has received a warning. The only time you would assess a T to the player is if he reaches through the plane and touches the ball while the thrower still has it. In that case, it's a T on the defender and a warning is issued if there's not previously been a warning.

Rookie, I'm not trying to be ugly but all these questions you ask are in the Rule Book and Case Book. Do you not study these two books?

May I suggest you study and then ask questions about things you don't understand as opposed to asking about plays that are specifically covered in the Case Book? I think you would learn and retain it more efficiently. After all, we're not going to be on the floor when you need a question answered.

Just a thought. :)

I am going thru a 200 question exam and I am doing a dumpster dive into the book and there are things that don't make sense to me or that I need clarification on...so I am leaning on the Vets for some guidance:)

Okay. It just doesn't seem like the questions are about clarifying anything. It seems more like you're just asking us the questions, straight off the exam.