Foul by the Thrower (Video)

Originally Posted by Adam

So, when do you start your throw in count?

About one second after the thrower possesses the ball out of bounds behind the end line

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I concur with your assessment that the thrower is seeking the contact and hoping to draw a significant penalty against his opponent. However, the action is nothing more than an illegal screen, thus in my opinion it would only warrant a common foul and therefore is ignored by rule during this dead ball period.

I just can't see deliberately running into an opponent during a dead ball when there is no reason to do so as being just an illegal screen. It deliberate contact that is also a non-basketball play. If it were inadvertent, then sure, it would be nothing. But he was looking to cause trouble, not set a screen.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I just can't see deliberately running into an opponent during a dead ball when there is no reason to do so as being just an illegal screen. It deliberate contact that is also a non-basketball play. If it were inadvertent, then sure, it would be nothing. But he was looking to cause trouble, not set a screen.

There are lots of times when players attempt to draw fouls during games--offensive players with the ball do so frequently with pump fakes and jumping into defenders, shooters stick their arms and legs out, jump shooters flop upon returning to the floor. All of these are deliberate actions designed to draw a whistle, yet who would ever consider an intentional foul for such? So it can't be the mindset which we are judging, it must be the actual contact.

To me this contact isn't any different from a screener who moves into an opponent illegally or an offensive player driving to the basket in a block/charge situation.

In the video, neither player extends his arms or elbows, causes contact above the shoulders, or grabs and holds his opponent, and I don't view the amount of contact as excessive, so it doesn't rise to the level of an intentional foul in my mind.

What we see is a player trying to be clever and draw an unwarranted penalty against an opponent by causing a collision, but that doesn't make it an intentional foul. Justice is to use the rule instructing officials to ignore common contact during a dead ball and not reward his unscrupulous attempt.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

What we see is a player trying to be clever and draw an unwarranted penalty against an opponent by causing a collision, but that doesn't make it an intentional foul.

I don't think the kid was trying to draw a foul at all. I think he was simply trying to knock his opponent into the basket support and act like it was an accident. I think it was a deliberate, malicious act. What if B5 had punched him? Would you kick both out of the game? I would.

Originally Posted by just another ref

I don't think the kid was trying to draw a foul at all. I think he was simply trying to knock his opponent into the basket support and act like it was an accident. I think it was a deliberate, malicious act. What if B5 had punched him? Would you kick both out of the game? I would.

I see your point, and Nevadaref's point. My head says this would be a common foul during a live ball and thus, by rule, ignored during a dead ball. My gut on the other hand tells me this is technical. I'm torn.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There are lots of times when players attempt to draw fouls during games--offensive players with the ball do so frequently with pump fakes and jumping into defenders, shooters stick their arms and legs out, jump shooters flop upon returning to the floor. All of these are deliberate actions designed to draw a whistle, yet who would ever consider an intentional foul for such? So it can't be the mindset which we are judging, it must be the actual contact.

To me this contact isn't any different from a screener who moves into an opponent illegally or an offensive player driving to the basket in a block/charge situation.

In the video, neither player extends his arms or elbows, causes contact above the shoulders, or grabs and holds his opponent, and I don't view the amount of contact as excessive, so it doesn't rise to the level of an intentional foul in my mind.

What we see is a player trying to be clever and draw an unwarranted penalty against an opponent by causing a collision, but that doesn't make it an intentional foul. Justice is to use the rule instructing officials to ignore common contact during a dead ball and not reward his unscrupulous attempt.

I really don't think that line of reasoning holds water.

Would you call it the same way if a player walked up to another player during a dead ball and shoved them in the chest/back with 2 hands? Players do that during normal play too and it is usually ruled common.

At some point, contact which might be acceptable during a live ball just has no valid purpose during a dead ball...as many people say, it is a non-basketball play. It is merely contact for the sake of contact and that makes it excessive for the situation. The common vs intentional elements of these rules are to allow for residual contact just after the ball is dead that is a result of the preceding play. I don't think they ever were intended to allow for random, deliberate contact with no basketball purpose.

[Nevadaref]

In my opinion, a two-handed shove in the chest or back of an opponent should be ruled an intentional foul (perhaps even flagrant) regardless of whether the ball is live or dead.

However that is NOT what took place in the video. The thrower merely jumped into and in front of the opponent as he was making his way back inbounds. W23 did this with the sole hope of drawing a foul on his opponent. We may not like this idea, but he didn't attempt any rough or dangerous tactics when doing so. If we just look at the body-to-body collision for what it is, I believe that classifying it as anything other than a common foul would be a stretch.

The play wasn't dirty. It was merely devious.

I'm most comfortable using the clear rule in the book instructing me to ignore dead ball contact which isn't adjudged to be intentional or flagrant, and making the kid get up and execute a throw-in.

Btw I should note that the calling official in the video can be heard stating that this is a foul by W23 and that it is Blue's ball. The only way that is acceptable under the rules is if he deems this a live ball situation. He is clearly calling a team control foul. I don't know how the crew ended up ruling and administering following the conversation. Perhaps the OP can provide more video footage and what the ruling was in the game.

[JetMetFan]

I could live with no call here. I will say W23 needed someone to talk to him to try to have him ramp down his emotions a bit. I'd really like to see the full game up to that point to find out whether he'd been coming close to doing something like this.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Btw I should note that the calling official in the video can be heard stating that this is a foul by W23 and that it is Blue's ball. The only way that is acceptable under the rules is if he deems this a live ball situation. He is clearly calling a team control foul. I don't know how the crew ended up ruling and administering following the conversation. Perhaps the OP can provide more video footage and what the ruling was in the game.

Nevada, at some point Desert Valley puts all of its championship games on its YouTube site as well as a lot of California's state playoff games. It's probably be up by the end of the week.

[referee99]

White shot 2 FT and had a throw-in at the division line. Ruled common foul on White 23 and Tech on Blue 5.

[referee99]

6.1.2 SITUATION B:
Team A has just scored a goal. The ball is bouncing close to the end line when: (a) A1 calls for a time-out; or (b) A1 illegally contacts B1.
RULING: In order to rule correctly, it depends on whether the bouncing ball is judged to be at the thrower's disposal. If the covering official judges it is at the thrower's disposal, he/she would start the count and the ball becomes live. In this case, in (a), no time-out is granted and the foul in (b), is penalized. If the ball is not at the thrower's disposal, the time-out is granted in (a), and the contact in (b), is ignored unless it is intentional or flagrant.
COMMENT: In this situation, the covering official must give the new throw-in team a moment or two to recognize it is their ball for a throw-in and get a player into the area to pick up the ball. If the ball is near the end line, it is the throw-in team's responsibility to secure it and throw-in from anywhere out of bounds along the end line. The covering official shall start his/her throw-in count when it is determined the ball is available. (4-4-7d)

[referee99]

Don't know if they will post a video, as it was a Northern California crew on the game. It was a good game, too.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by referee99

Don't know if they will post a video, as it was a Northern California crew on the game. It was a good game, too.

Ah, didn't realize. I remember a number of last year's state championships were posted. Since I'm definitely not from there I didn't know it was a North/South type of thing. Thanks.

[referee99]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Ah, didn't realize. I remember a number of last year's state championships were posted. Since I'm definitely not from there I didn't know it was a North/South type of thing. Thanks.

I know of one game posted that was a North crew last year, so we'll see. In any event, for a video geek like you (not me!) THANK GOODNESS FOR DVBOA!!

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

In my opinion, a two-handed shove in the chest or back of an opponent should be ruled an intentional foul (perhaps even flagrant) regardless of whether the ball is live or dead.

However that is NOT what took place in the video. The thrower merely jumped into and in front of the opponent as he was making his way back inbounds. W23 did this with the sole hope of drawing a foul on his opponent. We may not like this idea, but he didn't attempt any rough or dangerous tactics when doing so. If we just look at the body-to-body collision for what it is, I believe that classifying it as anything other than a common foul would be a stretch.

The play wasn't dirty. It was merely devious.

I'm most comfortable using the clear rule in the book instructing me to ignore dead ball contact which isn't adjudged to be intentional or flagrant, and making the kid get up and execute a throw-in.

Btw I should note that the calling official in the video can be heard stating that this is a foul by W23 and that it is Blue's ball. The only way that is acceptable under the rules is if he deems this a live ball situation. He is clearly calling a team control foul. I don't know how the crew ended up ruling and administering following the conversation. Perhaps the OP can provide more video footage and what the ruling was in the game.

The kid who got what IMO was an intentional shoulder/elbow to the gut as he's trying to come back onto the court and play defense likely thinks it was dirty and not merely devious.

I'm interested in further discussion of the play itself and how what was called was administered.

But I think saying it was merely devious when you purposely lower your shoulder and make contact with it or your elbow, that's just wrong and has no place in a basketball game.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by referee99

I know of one game posted that was a North crew last year, so we'll see. In any event, for a video geek like you (not me!) THANK GOODNESS FOR DVBOA!!

I've got a few clips from them I'm holding until after the season when we're all detoxing!