Dead Ball Foul
 

A1 drives to the hoop and makes a layup, while losing his balance. B1 starts to take the ball out of bounds after the made basket. As he is beginning to throw the ball back in, A1 starts to turn around from out of bounds to run down court and flattens B1, as A1 was not paying attention. My partner called a personal foul on this but it does not seem to follow the definition in 4-19-1 and 4-19-1 Note. Should this have been a no call unless it was intentional or flagrant or was this done properly? Thanks.

Sounds like a live ball to me

It's a live ball once the ball is at the disposal of the thrower after the basket is made. Sounds like he was right.

I'm thinking this should be an intentional personal foul. 4-19-3e doesn't make an exception for a player who just made a layup.

While it doesn't, it was clearly written to cover a player defending the throwin...one where the player couldn't legally be OOB. In this case, I'm inclined to to with a basic personal foul...spirit and intent.

I started to think about B1 being still inbounds after retrieving the ball versus having obtained it and already moved OOB for the throw-in.

Despite the rule change for this season, I'd only call a foul in this case if the thrower was out-of-bounds, and then I would call an intentional personal foul.

The reason is that I would consider the ball to still be dead and not have started my throw-in count until B1 got OOB, thus the contact described would be ignored by rule, if it occurred during this dead-ball period following the goal. I wouldn't consider the action to warrant an intentional or flagrant contact technical based upon what the OP wrote.
However, once the ball is live that personal foul contact must be called and by rule must be deemed an intentional personal foul.

Since the OP stated "as he is beginning to throw the ball back in," I assumed B1 was OOB and the ball was live.

I tentatively agree with your final sentence. While Camron makes a good point, I think the point of the rule is to give the thrower an unfettered throw. Whether the player is legally OOB only means you don't add a DOG warning to the mix, IMO.

A couple of days ago a local official inquired about a similar situation.
He described A1 making a basket while running full speed and his momentum carrying him out of bounds near the basket. While B1 collects the ball on quickly steps OOB to make the throw-in pass, A1 turns around and starts moving back inbounds.
A1 makes no contact with B1, who releases the throw-in pass towards teammate B2. However, as A1 is in mid-stride crossing the boundary plane he reaches out and blocks the thrown pass.

We discussed a few points, which I thought would be nice to post on this forum:
The feet of A1 are: a. one inbounds and one OOB, b. one inbounds and one in the air, c. both in the air and neither has yet to touch inbounds.

Then we discussed the released ball being on the outside of the boundary plane or the inbounds side of the boundary plane.

Finally, we discussed what if the thrower had not yet released the pass and A1 had knocked the ball free, either purposely with his hand or accidentally with his hip while running by B1.

(For those who care, in the actual play A1 was judged to have one foot out of bounds and the other in the air, yet to touch inbounds. The surprising factor is that the C made the call on this play!)

I guess that I'm harsh. To me the rule is now very clear. You foul a thrower, it is an intentional personal foul. Period.
If you do so on the OOB side of the boundary plane, it also constitutes a delay of game warning. I don't care if the player was there legally or not. The contact is still illegal and the rule is crystal clear on the appropriate penalty.

While I agree with the IF judgment I don't agree with the DOG portion as B1 didn't cross the plane during a throw-in.

Right, I'm not hitting A with a dog just because B1 is quick to the ball.

My two cents.
 

I think that is one of those HTBT situations.

Some things to consider are:

1) When A1 regained his balance and then turned around did he instantly make contact with B1. If so, this is what we baseball umpires might describe as a "train wreck" and I would be inclined to stop play and reset.

2) On the other hand if A1 saw B1 and could have easily avoided him but instead decided to flatten him, I would be inclined to charge A1 with a IPF per rule. But this would be the only situation where A1 is charged with an IPF but the DOG (NFHS R4-S47) would not apply.

MTD, Sr.