FED Reaching Through the Plane

[bob jenkins]

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

[Scrapper1]

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.

[Welpe]

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.

[DrPete]

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. "

[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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

Just found the reference. 10.3.10 Situation D.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Just found the reference. 10.3.10 Situation D.

Guess I didn't dig deep enough.

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Just found the reference. 10.3.10 Situation D.

Thanks.

[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.

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Just found the reference. 10.3.10 Situation D.

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)

[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.