DoG on Inbound throw-in
 

In 1k games my first 2.5 years of officiating I have called 20 DoG for kids reaching heavily through the inbound plane after trying to talk them back. I have also watched a lot of games. My partners and in those other games I have only seen this DoG called a few times. My personality is this gives the defense an advantage and well they aren't heading the warning and to actually call it.

I am beginning to wonder if a lot of officials let them get away with moderate infringement because they dont want to have to stop the game and go over and report it because it seems embarrassing or not not severe enough to stop a game.

I dont want to slow my climb up the ladder by being to picky on this call and the one where kids hit the line on free throw attempts.

I need some advice and look forward to it today. Thanks in advance.

Depends on level of games you are officiating.

I know of a lot of officials here that ignore players reaching through the plane on a throw-in. I know of several that knowingly ignore calling a technical when a player contacts the ball after reaching through the plane. Sadly these aren't the only things they ignore. A lot of guys just don't want to rock the boat.

The goal for many is to call the obvious. Now I cannot tell you if all your DOG calls were legit or too technical, but I want to call the obvious ones that affect play as a general rule of thumb. Remember you are in many cases the only one there to know how much someone has crossed the line. And this is really the case if they are just and inch or so over the line (not talking about the feet over the line either). Also I do a lot of preventative officiating which I believe prevents this from being a common occurrence in my games. So what happen earlier in my career is not necessarily what happens later in my career. So it could be that you are being a little technical with your lack of overall experience. It could also be that you have just had a lot of these situations that you have had to deal with. There is honestly no real one answer for this, you just have to take a personal inventory and decide if this is something you want to be known for and can you prevent it better.

I hope that helps a little.

Peace

Before I administer the throw-in, if the defender is playing close to the line, I give a reminder to not cross the plane. In that same vein, I'll remind the thrower he can back up as far as he/she needs to. After giving the ball to the thrower, I'm more focused on the immediate action on the court (cutter, screens, holds, etc.) so I'm not going to be too worried about if the defender has crossed the plane just a little bit. If I'm going to get this call it's going to be clear and obvious.

What Else Ought We not Call So As Not to Stop the Game?
 

They made provision for us to give a warning prior to issuing the penalty so that we'd be more inclined to enforce this.

Three great replies.

I have been trying to talk to the defender before I had off the ball. Especially when I notice early on how aggressive the inbound defense is.

I like all these ideas.

I will communicate with the defender and remind the offense to back off the line. I will focus on the players. Yet if doing that and out of the corner of my eye I see clear crossing over the plane I will blow it and give the warning. Normally after this I tell the defense "I dont want to call the T please give them space" Is that to forward. Should it be my normal dont break the plane? I have tried to only call the ones that were beyond 3-6 inches.

Again thanks for the responses.

Rut is Right !!!!!! Is this a campaign slogan in 2012?????
 

God.............. I know that I am going to get killed for supporting Rut!!!!

Big T - just a thought here ( the RULES GUYS) won't like this, but try this on for size.

A1 reaches through the plane and hits the ball, either a pass or in the inbounders hand, well he violated when he reached through the plane. You can always blow your whistle and call the violation for breaking the plane and not call an unwarranted T. You will know when player is actually attempting to reach through the plane to touch the ball. When THAT occurs, then you have a T.....

Just a little game management......

OK here comes all the rules guys with why I am wrong:):):)

It's probably better to ask your assigner what he thinks, than what we think here.

The only time that my assigner observed me last year, I had a DOG plane violation. I saw my assigner a week later, and he gave me a big thumbs up for calling that. If your assigner feels differently about it, just do what the boss says.

And BigT, you can sum up your advice to the defense in only a few words, "Watch the line, 44 (or applicable number)."

I have said something of that sort so they realize how serious the penalty is if they do more than just cross the line. Then again this is something usually older players do not do as much as younger players. But I probably always say something before throwing the ball in when there is pressure on the thrower. It takes a second to not have a bigger problem later.

Peace

You can get away with this in most lower level games. I don't bother trying, but some do and that's fine.

But I hope you realize once the thrower releases his inbound pass, the defensive restrictions are over.

So if A1 has a non-designated spot throw-in and is throwing the ball to A2 who is also OOB B2 can stick his hand across the plane and hit the ball?

Nice Post ...
 

In this case, A1 to A2 is not considered an inbounds pass.

What he said.

There, I fixed it for you, and that is also why you are wrong.

The NFHS people actually took the time to write a nice case play on this so that it would be officiated consistently and correctly instructing us to penalize the entire act when the player breaks the plane AND contacts the ball in the thrower's hand(s), yet you choose to do your own personal thing. :(

Your line of thinking on this is strange.
Do you also not call fouls because the defender wasn't actually attempting to foul?
I can hear it now, "No, coach, that's not a foul because he was trying to hit the ball, but missed and whacked your shooter's arm. He wasn't actually trying to foul him." :eek:

Not at the NCAA level. ;)

Amen!

I know some purists will jump on me for this, but I'm of the firm belief that 99% of the reach ins in these situations can be prevented by a simple "Don't reach over" aimed at the defender if I feel they're standing pretty close to the boundary line.

I would hope that 99 percent of people WOULDN'T have a problem with this. Good preventative approach and common sense officiating.

hmmmmm :D

It's not game management, it's ignoring a clearly written rule. I don't have a problem with reminding the defender to give space, but I don't like ignoring a rule just to save yourself the headache of a technical/INT foul.

+100. Just call it. This is the stuff coaches complain about, and I think in this case, rightly so. One guy will call the Tech/INT foul, one guy will just issue the warning for reaching through the plane even though the thrower was touched, and one guy will ignore it all together. If everyone would just call it like it is written, we would hear less crap as a group. I think this applies to a lot of situations/rules in more than just basketball.

Copyright Laws ?????
 

NevadaRef -

Are you allowed to change my posts.... lol !!!! B-Mac can you comment on any copyright infractions ?????

YES !!!! By rule you are correct, but at a lower level game where there is no intent lighten up my friend (those friday morning Wheaties are really kickin in). I just think that if you can get away with a violation, where it won't have a major bearing on the game then that is a good direction to go. Am I going to do it with a minute left in a tie game...YES !!!! My stones and I will step and make the technical foul call !!!!!

Peace my brothers !!!!!!

Violation or Technical Foul
 

OK just for kicks..........

If I reach across the plane AND touch the ball, "BY RULE"...........didn't I violate first.........

Although I agree with calling this as it is written (at the varsity level & up) the following is BS!

I highly doubt it, for the majority, they want it called consistently... in their favor that is.


I believe theres a caseplay to support calling the T/INT over the initial violation.
I'm quite sure a good official like yourself knows how to talk em out of silly infractions though :)

Honestly you cannot speak for everyone here, but I have not seen a player at the high school level even get close to a technical or intentional foul on a throw-in. The times when I have had to actually call this were a middle school and below and that was early in my career.

Peace

Finally some good conversation............
 

This is some great dialogue .... Finally something more on this site than our man B-Mac with his summer comedy routine !!!!!!

Hopefully all remaining shows have been cancelled !!!!!!!

Hadn't called a T for this in years, this year I had one. Sixth grade YMCA game.

And, Yes, I'm Enjoying The Real Basketball Rules Threads ...
 

You had better hope that there are still a few states in which high school girls basketball is played in the fall. I would much rather post on rules, interpretations, and mechanics, than post slightly off topic "stuff". But sometimes, when I'm bored, a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

I was under the impression these are the types of games in the OP because I sure as heck don't have numerous instances of reaching across the plane in my HS and college games.

+1

Peace

+2

I'll Pile On
 

+7(3.14/(number of officials in the crew + x))-(23(level of contest/timeouts left) + (# of jersey numbers over 55)) :)

(slow day at work today :o)

Things That Make You Go Hmmm ...
 

Situation A: Team A prepares to make a "run the endline throwin". Only two Team A players are in the backcourt, A1, standing out of bounds, with the ball, and A2, standing inbounds, on the weak side, below the bottom lane space block, just a few inches off the endline. A1 releases a pass to A2 and B1 crosses the endline to knock away the pass. What's the call? I'm sure that we would all agree that this is a legal defensive play since the inbounds pass had already been released.

Situation B: Team A prepares to make a "run the endline throwin". Only two Team A players are in the backcourt, A1, standing out of bounds, with the ball, and A2, standing out of bounds, on the weak side. A1 releases a pass to A2 and B1 crosses the endline to knock away the pass. What's the call? I'm sure that we would all agree that B1 would be charged with a technical foul, with no warning, for crossing the endline and touching the ball before the inbounds pass had already been released. And, of course, the technical foul would also "count" as a warning for any further delay of game situations.

Now the fun starts.

Situation C: Team A prepares to make a "run the endline throwin". Only three Team A players are in the backcourt, A1, standing out of bounds, with the ball; A2, standing out of bounds, on the weak side (A2 arrived in this position after his momentum, while defending a Team B player, took him out of bounds); and A3, standing inbounds, on the weak side, below the bottom lane space block, just a few inches off the endline, and just a few inches away from A2, who is on the other, out of bounds side, of the endline. A1 releases a pass, in the general direction of both A2, and A3, and B1 crosses the endline to knock away the pass. What's the call?

Well..........
 

Not sure whether I agree. This sitch seems like a 10-1-5c which would result in a 4-47-1.
Or am I missing something?

Still trying to fathom Situation C.....

9-2-Penalty 3 ...
 

If an opponent(s) reaches through the throw-in boundary-line plane and
touches or dislodges the ball while in possession of the thrower or being
passed to a teammate outside the boundary line (as in 7-5-7), a technical
foul shall be charged to the offender. No warning for delay required. See
10-3-10 Penalty.

10-3-10: A player shall not: Reach through the throw-in boundary-line plane and touch or
dislodge the ball as in 9-2 Penalty 3.

With C, it would have to be excruciatingly obvious that the pass was destined for the OOB teammate before I call the T (or DOG).

I have nothing. If the situation is truly ambiguous, I'm going with the legal option over calling a T. We simply have to make a judgement about whether it was an inbound pass or not.

In situation C I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the defense.

Oh Yeah...A Duh
 

Thanx for the missing component as stated in your first citation. I knew that. Where did I leave my keys?

Now, Why Did I Walk Into This Room ???
 

If you find them, please let me know if my reading glasses are in the same place.

I swing my elbow and clock you in the face. Didn't I violate first?

I think I have given two technicals for slapping the ball while the thrower had it in his hands. Both were obvious and couldn't and shouldn't have been ignored.

Apparently you have not seen how bad some of the basketball is in places far from you.

In high school games?

There is bad basketball everywhere and I see a lot of it during every season. A lot of very bad coached teams I will see every season as well.

But you said that this was ignored as if that it was only not being called because people decided not to call this violation of the rules. I just do not work a lot of basketball where this is even an issue. And I think it is more the case because older players know better, than how well coached they are.

Peace

Not a valid comparison.

It is still a foul, a technical foul specifically, to clock someone in the face with an elbow even during a dead ball.

However, there is nothing illegal about contacting a ball that is dead.

That, of course, is not to say that the case play on this topic is wrong.....just that your example doesn't work.

I follow your argument, but don't agree with it.
However, this is a good exercise in criticial/logical thinking, so...to follow your lead, let me alter my example and ask further questions of you.

1. While A1 is holding a live ball inbounds near the FT line, A2 and B2 are battling for position near the basket. B2 excessively swings his arms/elbows and strikes A2 in the face. How are you penalizing this action?
a. Excessive arm/elbow swinging violation with a technical foul for intentional/flagrant dead ball contact.
b. A common personal foul or an intentional/flagrant personal foul.

2. During a throw-in while A4 is holding the ball out-of-bounds, B4 steps across the boundary plane and punches A4 in the face. How are you penalizing this action?
a. A breaking the plane violation by Team B and a dead ball flagrant technical foul.
b. A flagrant personal foul.

In both cases, who may attempt the FTs is different depending upon your answer, so this does matter and must be clearly covered by the rules.

I hope that you find these examples more satisfactory for comparison to MS's line of thinking.

Both good points.

However, in #1, the elbow violation is still a judgement call. So, you could easily ignore it, and be within the rules, and then call a personal foul of any type. There is also nothing in the rules that says you can't call the swing and then call the contact as a T. So, there is no rules justification for saying either one is the right call over the other one. There may be interpretations or philosophies that direct us to call it as a live ball foul, but it isn't required in the rules. Breaking the plane, on the other hand, is black/white, no judgement needed. They player either crossed the line or they didn't.

#2 is a much better example IMHO. (While that opens up the rules conflict where a punch is defined as a fight and a fight is declared to be a technical foul while live ball contact is defined as a personal foul, I'm going to ignore that issue). We do have a case play that says if it is one act, to treat it as the most severe of the possibilities. However, if it is clearly two actions, where B steps across the line and then in a 2nd movement, punched A4, I've got a plane violation and then a T. If, however, B4 swings from inbounds and through the plane and connecting in one motion, I have a flagrant T....per the case play directing us to treat one action as one infraction of the more severe type.

Camron, in the case where you'd call a violation followed by a T, would you be ok with two Ts if there had already been a DOG warning?

I would not.....but even if I were, the first one would be a team T with the 2nd being an individual T.

I'm not talking about you or probably anyone else on this board. I have had conversations with other guys in my area that have told me they won't call various things, and this is one of the ones I have heard. I'm not saying everyone ignores it, I'm saying that some ignore it. Take that how you want.

One was a JV game, I'm pretty sure the other was a Varsity game. It has been a few years.

Ok, I don't think two incidents really contradicts Rut's main point here.

And I Hope That I Never Have To Call A Blarge ...
 

I won't call a multiple foul. Everything else is up to the players, and coaches, and is fair game for me to call.

I sWon't Call Goal Tending, Travelling, & Time Outs...Oh, and Held Balls. You?
 

:(

If there were a LIKE button here I would not click on it.

Then you need to be more clear that this is really an area thing. In my area I do not know anyone that has been told or says they would not call this. After all it is very rare that it would need to be called other than maybe levels lower than high school. I know I would call it at any level if it happens. I even tell players that if they reach across they are in threat of a technical foul and players seem to listen to that "threat." Then again that is my experience. Your experience might be totally different.

Peace

Exactly, there are some calls that while I'm willing to call them if they happen, they just don't happen often.

While I don't want to be the first guy in Colorado to call a ten second violation on a ft in a high school game, I've got no problem with other rare calls.

You mean not this DoG?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4OGdkoeqG0Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That's funny. That's a mole...as in whack a mole.

Unsporting ???
 

Would anyone consider the barking dog play unsporting, and deserving of a technical foul?

whack!

Woof woof !!!!!!
 

+1.... I hope that the AD would suspend that coach a game for that behavior!!!! But anyway a good technical foul is in order !!!!

Note from AllPurposeGamer: Keep the politics out of this thread

Oh good grief.

Just had my post on this thread edited by the new MANAGEMENT....while I think they were being a bit too picky, kudos to them for being active and screening our posts !!!!!!

WELPE - you were the only one to see my op-ed !!!!!!

I saw it (the perks of being a moderator), and it was an easy call by APG. Your point could have been made without the screed. If he hadn't done it, I would have.

I Blew It, My Only Chance To Get In The Record Book, Wasted ...
 

Aw shucks. I wanted to be the first. I guess I wasn't trying hard enough. I was distracted by the recent threads, and posts, that actually talked about basketball plays.

Got ya !!!!
 

BM -

Finally.... I have accomplished something that you haven't !!!!! I can now retire from posting on this site!!!!!! There will be a ticker tape parade, where I will receive my own personal shiny DELETE key!!!!!! I will be selling replicas
to all interested parties !!!!!!

My speech shall begin.... "A special thanks to Snags and APG for their leadership. This wouldn't be possible without their nurturing by Bob Jenkins."....................... The rest of this speech is currently being written by some VIP's.

More to come at a later date......

:):):):)

Dang, I missed it.

The Winner, And Still Forum Champion ...
 

Let's see who get suspended from the Forum, "Forever", as I have, twice. I've also been suspended for a month. Let's see you go ahead and beat those records. Go ahead, I dare you. Give it your best shot. Go ahead and make my day.

Patience, Billy.

I saw the original since I can always go back and look at it. No brainer moderation.

We're not looking to be overly aggressive here, but if you want to make political points, this isn't the place.

Pay Attention my son !!!!!!!!
 

BM - See how easy it was to get you off your game !!!!! No need for you to pay attention to posts that actually talk plays....your value to us on this thread is two fold....you are a spokesperson for IAABO and your amusement
value is second to none. Don't come on here claiming to be Peter Webb or any other other rules guru or great play caller!!!!!!!!


Simply stated.......KNOW YOUR ROLE !!!!!

Big T, in my 19 years of officiating (mostly in the SLC area), I haven't called this anywhere near 20 times. Talk them out of the DoG and call only what you HAVE to.

Remember, when in Rome...

Don't stand out for the wrong reason.

Who shoots the FTs?
 

So just a couple questions for us newer officials.
Who shoots the technical or intentional free throws after contact of the ball/player OOB? The player or the team? Does it matter in this case whether it is INT or Tech?

Next question, after the shooting of the FTs, where is the ball inbounded?
Specifically from this scenario: Team A is inbounding under their own basket. B1 breaks the plane and strikes the ball while stil in A1s hand. Technical foul is called. Seems like a disadvantage to me to have A inbound the ball form half court whenthey had it under the basket to start with.
Thanks

The rule does not change for this situation, it is just like any other situations. Intentional Fouls are always shot by the person fouled unless injured or disqualified for some reason. Technical Fouls are always shot by anyone that is available on the team to shoot the FTs.

Again, what does the rule say? Who cares what it might be more advantageous or what is fair? All Technical Fouls throw-ins are administered at the division line, opposite the table. Is it advantageous to now have another Technical Foul of any kind now will disqualify a player or coach from the game? It does not matter what is more advantageous you or I think, the rule is the rule for a reason. At least an Intentional Foul is just like another foul.

Peace

That is prety much what I thought. Just wanted verification. Thanks again.

Moral of the story, do not overthink rules. Most rules are pretty simple if you actually think of them through. And it is rather basic what we do in IF and TF situations if you just take a breathe and think of what you do.

Now this should not be a rule you ever screw up. ;)

Peace

A lot of good advise from others here...If I may, I would add...

"Don't make this your best call!"

Of course, I would say this about 3 seconds in the key also...

"Don't make this your best call!"

Notice...I did not say "don't call it"...just "don't make it your best call!" ;)