out of bounds throw-in

[Zoochy]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich1

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

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.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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

[Nevadaref]

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.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

Originally Posted by asdf

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

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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)

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.