The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 17, 2014, 11:35am
Ok is the new good
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 658
Throw Ins

Couple of scenarios on throw ins:

1) A1 has ball for throw in under his basket:

a) B1 crosses the plane and hits A1 on arm

b) A1 extends ball over the plane to in-bounds side and B1 hits his arm

c) A1 extends ball over the plane in-bounds side and b1 hits the ball only

Rulings in each case?

Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 17, 2014, 11:53am
NFHS Official
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,734
A. Intentional
B. Intentional
C. Nothing
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 17, 2014, 11:54am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Rookie View Post
Couple of scenarios on throw ins:

1) A1 has ball for throw in under his basket:

a) B1 crosses the plane and hits A1 on arm

b) A1 extends ball over the plane to in-bounds side and B1 hits his arm

c) A1 extends ball over the plane in-bounds side and b1 hits the ball only

Rulings in each case?

Thanks!
Under the "teach a man to fish" theory, I will point you to the case book -- all cases under 9.2.10

Those will directly answer a) and b)

I think you can figure out c) from there.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 17, 2014, 01:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,015
a. Intentional personal foul AND team warning for delay of game.
b. Intentional personal foul without the team warning for delay.
c. Nothing illegal. Continue the game.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 17, 2014, 02:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,263
Agree, according to the case, but (B) is just dumb. It is the interpretation, but it just makes no sense. The player can legally hit or grab the ball. Contact with a player in a location and at at time where they can legally play the ball just should not be classified as an intentional foul.

This case is not actually supported by rule as the penalty which declares this as an intentional foul is attached to the rule that says the defender can not reach through the throwin plane until the ball is released. It is implying that breaking the plane is the infraction which triggers the penalty....either a violation, a TF, or an IF depending on what happens when the defender crosses the plane.

Another case of someone on the committee making things up that don't match the rule and, somehow, getting it through.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 17, 2014, 02:17pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
Agree, according to the case, but (B) is just dumb. It is the interpretation, but it just makes no sense. The player can legally hit or grab the ball. Contact with a player in a location and at at time where they can legally play the ball just should not be classified as an intentional foul.

This case is not actually supported by rule as the penalty which declares this as an intentional foul is attached to the rule that says the defender can not reach through the throwin plane until the ball is released. It is implying that breaking the plane is the infraction which triggers the penalty....either a violation, a TF, or an IF depending on what happens when the defender crosses the plane.

Another case of someone on the committee making things up that don't match the rule and, somehow, getting it through.
If you recall this ruling was only changed a couple of years ago. Prior to that it was just a common foul.
Mary Struckhoff was the NFHS rules editor at the time. I'd be willing to bet that either she or one of her friends working NCAAW screwed up this situation and charged an intentional personal foul, so the rule was changed to make that person retroactively correct.
I agree that it has no basis in the rules and is a poor interpretation.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 18, 2014, 10:39am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,280
You would not believe (Or maybe you would) how many partners have told me they won't call anything when the defender contacts the ball or thrower while both are OOB. Not even a DoG warning. I have told partners that I have given warnings for breaking the plane and called technicals for contacting the ball, and they scoff at me and act like I'm from Mars.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fumble on throw in and free throw billyu2 Basketball 9 Thu Jan 17, 2013 12:33pm
throw-in after double personal during free throw closetotheedge Basketball 26 Mon Dec 01, 2008 02:39am
5 sec throw in Stan Basketball 13 Wed Feb 15, 2006 01:45pm
3 man mechanic on sideline throw in below free throw line extended!!!! jritchie Basketball 10 Tue Nov 01, 2005 02:43pm
Throw-in spot after throw-in violation zebraman Basketball 6 Sun Dec 12, 2004 08:09pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:59pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1