Throw Ins

[The_Rookie]

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!

[OKREF]

A. Intentional
B. Intentional
C. Nothing

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

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.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[Camron Rust]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[zm1283]

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.