out of bounds throw-in
 

A1 has the ball for a throw-in and is guarded by B1. A1 looses his/her balance. Leans forwards and places his/her hand through the boundary plane and places the hand on B1 to stop from falling and recover his/her balance.

Intentional foul on B1 for making contact with a thrower.

I'm kidding.

I'm going to call a throw in violation on A1.

What is the violation? I can't think of one unless they actually touch the floor inbounds.

I'm thinking.

I think you're right. I would probably have called the violation and then realized it should have been nothing.

Check the note on rule 9-3: The thrower may penetrate the plane aslong as they do not touch the inbounds area or a player inbounds before the ball is released.

Interesting. Sort of makes sense if it is a teammate. However, if it is an opponent as is the case in the OP, that will make for an interesting delima since it is also an intentional foul on the inbounds player for contacting the thrower according to 9-3-10 Penalty 4.

Basketball Rules Interpretations - 2009-10

Robert F. Kanaby, Publisher, NFHS Publications © 2009

SITUATION 1: A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in and is being guarded by B1. Before releasing the ball, A1 loses his/her balance, reaches out and puts his/her hand on B1 (who is inbounds) in an effort to regain his/her balance. RULING: Throw-in violation by A1. A1 is required to remain out of bounds until releasing the throw-in pass. When A1 touches an inbounds player, he/she now has inbound status. However, if the contact on B1 is illegal, a personal foul should be called. COMMENT: A throw-in violation must be called in order to maintain the balance between offense and defense. (2-3; 9-2-1; 9-2-5)

The text of the Note following 9-2-10 in the 2009-10 NFHS rules book: "The thrower may penetrate the plane provided he/she does not touch the inbounds area before the ball is released on the throw-in pass. The opponent in this situation may legally touch or grasp the ball."

The text of the Note following 9-2-10 in the 2010-11 NFHS rules book: "The thrower may penetrate the plane provided he/she does not touch the inbounds area or a player inbounds before the ball is released on the throw-in pass. The opponent in this situation may legally touch or grasp the ball."

I remember when this Interp was published because it had no basis within the rules book and the rationale given (the thrower obtains inbounds status by touching an inbounds player) was untrue.

So the very next year the NFHS book was altered to include a new phrase making this a violation. It was NOT announced as either a rule change nor an editorial change.

The previous rules book editor Mary Struckhoff was notorious for this. My belief is that she or one of her colleagues would kick a play while working a game and then she would change the rule the next season in an attempt to retroactively make the call correct. This was also done with making any foul against a thrower an intentional personal foul, including when the opponent didn't break the boundary plane.

The inbounds player didn't contact the thrower-in, he is standing there motionless with his back turned.

Why would you penalize the opponent for contact initiated by the thrower?

Zoochy has a history of crafty posting. He is an experienced official who is very knowledgable of the rules, and almost never asks a question to which he doesn't already know the answer. I strongly suspect that he noticed the added language in the rules book and is pointing it out to those on this forum.

To me the penalty should be the same... but they didn't ask me. Maybe next year.

If they didn't contact the thrower, then this discussion is moot there is nothing to call either way.

The rule doesn't say cause contact, just that they contact. It don't matter who causes it, they make contact. It is a poorly written rule/interpretation that should have never been written. It simply should not be an intentional foul at all for in inbounds player to contact the thrower, either passively or actively, when the thrower reaches through the plane....but the rule says otherwise. It says if there is contact between the two, it is an intentional personal foul on the defender.

As Nevada said, there has been some very poor rule writing in recent years.

It says "opponent contacts", meaning the opponent is performing the action. There is no intepretation or case play that say if the offensive players reaches through the plane and makes contact with the defender, that an intentional is to be called on the defensive player.

That how you've chosen to interpret the rule.

(And the rule is 9-2-10, not 9-3-10)

Contact is both a transitive and intransitive verb. I contend that the rule intended to use the transitive form of the verb. Camron, I believe you're assuming the intransitive form.

Thanks, those were the words I wanted to use. :D

No, that isn't really what i"m saying. I wouldn't call an IF in such a case. Just pointing out that the wording of the rule on both sides of this one is poor and could, in some circumstances, be interpreted either way. I think the interpretation that it is an IF for a defender to contact a thrower on the inbounds side of the line is horrible to start with.

Imagine this....A1 waiving around with the ball across the line, trying to find a person to throw it to. B1 waiving around trying to block A1's ability to make the throw (keeping on the inbounds side of the line). The two sets of arms meet. Who contacted/touched who? Do you have an OOB violation on the thrower or an IF on the defender? Both infractions have occured even when viewed with the transitive forms of both contact and touch.

In 7-2-1 and 2 the NF editor(s) demonstrate that they can present the transitive/intransitive aspects of certain words, "The ball is caused to go out of bounds by the last player to touch it or be touched by it,"
(italics added).
Unfortunately, in the subject of this thread, they omitted such clarification.