Foul by the Thrower (Video)
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/TKycLRf1p0s?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Foul on White 23, and then Unsporting T on Blue 5.

What, in your opinion, it the correct foul to assess on White 23 for contact?
Player Control, Intentional, or Technical?

None of the above. Incidental contact. I didn't see anything dirty.

Tech on W23 for the contact.

Unsporting tech on B5 for the stare-down.

I'm good with the calls. Ball is live when W23 gains control, so I suppose it would be a PC foul, and if you want to call it intentional I can live with that, too. I assume B5 said something unacceptable.

Looks intentional to me. I don't mind a T here.

I would have a talk with #5, but that's about it from what I see.

The ball isn't live until it's the point where you would start your count. He's barely getting OOB when he makes contact, the ball is still dead, IMO.

You're right. I knew the definition of at disposal after a goal said "available to a player." I didn't realize it also said "and the official begins the throw-in count."

In light of this new information you honor, I'd go with a T for an intentional foul here.

So, when do you start your throw in count?

Some extra info for those on this forum:
1. The was the D2 boys State Championship game in CA.
2. The player in white is the son of the head coach.

The proper ruling here is to ignore what would have been a common foul by white had it occurred during a live ball. Simply move on with the game and continue with the throw-in.

It depends. In this case, had the foul not happened, it would have started when W23 stepped out of bounds with the ball. Sometimes, the ball is available, but the offense deliberately is slow to pick it up while their press break set up or whatever. In this case the count may start with the ball on the floor.

Common foul? I see deliberate contact with "an opponent who is clearly not involved in the play."

What do you see?

Agree....INT, which becomes a T due to the dead ball. The kid knew exactly what he was doing. He was looking for a call but the one he got was quite a bit different than the one he hoped for.

Unless there's a delay, I don't think you can consider this a live ball until the thrower is out of bounds.

I'm with you here. I think this foul happened a split second before the count should have started. Never had reason to separate it like this before.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Subsequently
 

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

Relevant Case Play?
 

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)

Dvboa
 

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.

I don't think North is a deal breaker
 

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!!

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.

:D :D

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

T on W23 (ball is dead), nothing on blue 5 unless he said one of the magic words. He didn't appear to be saying anything agressive. The endline replay cut out before we could see what he said. And I don't think there was an official anywhere near the two to hear what was said.

L should probably stay and make sure 23 didn't get his wish and start a fight. He just left the two of them by themselves to sort it out.

Ballgame,

Agree with you. No way I'm ignoring this contact - it was not incidental. It could lead to escalating behavior.

Couple others here have mentioned similar sentiments, so I have a question. Is this advocating the adjudication of a penalty in severity of what MAY happen?

If that's the case I disagree 100%. The contact looks like a no-call and one that I would address with a player first chance I got. What MAY happen after is irrelevant since non of us can tell the future.

Lowering a shoulder into an opponent with no basketball play involved...I would nip that in the bud right away...call it flagrant, send him home.

How many of you would be making a different argument if it was #5 who had gone to the ground and not #23?

Yes and no. Knowing what behaviors can escalate can be helpful, if used judiciously.

Let me nip this one quick. If you are implying racial prejudice in influencing calls then I would suggest you go cry up Sharpton's tree. That may happen in isolated incidents absolutely. But by far and large the responses here are pretty even keel and consistent.

You want to call a flagrant foul on this. Good luck, I'm sure that call would shoot you straight to the NBA.

Except this one:
I don't want to speak for Rev. but I'm pretty sure he/she is talking about the impact of the contact and who takes the brunt of it. Sheesh!

I think the only suggestion that was being made was that the instigator remains the same but he person who falls as a result was different.

Your inference does not mean he implied it. Let's not go down that road here, there's nothing anywhere that suggests race is a factor until your post. If you want to edit it, I'll remove the posts that respond to it.

Nah, leave his thinking posted for all to see.
He's young and prone to jump to the most radical conclusion.
He won't learn if you keep expunging his ill-advised posts.

I may have took it that way but that's the only difference I would see. Whether one team or the other was to cause that contact in that situation it wouldn't change anything. The only difference is race and jersey color. Whether white or blue caused this doesn't change anything.

Camron I can see your interpretation now that you mention it. I may have interpreted the comment differently but lets not act like this is the first time this topic has been broached on this forum.

If he wasn't implying what I thought he may have been then the first part of my response doesn't apply.

Adam I don't mind editing it but it could be a misunderstanding, and I wouldn't mind an actual clarification from Rev as to what he really meant first.

Seems pretty obvious that he was talking about the thrower being the one that got knocked down by the defender, and asking how many of those saying there was no foul in the OP would call a foul for that.

A little late to this, but the consensus seems to be that this is a dead ball situation and therefore either ignored or a T.

When I look at it, I would consider the ball at the thrower's disposal as soon as he secures it and is clearly on his way out of bounds. So I would have a common foul or intentional foul on white. My question is, if I felt it was a common foul, would this be considered a PC foul? Can you have a PC foul on throw in?

So by your own words of deliberate and malicious, you would have to eject the player? Malicious means flagrant to me.

I don't think I have any foul here. I have dead ball contact that isn't flagrant or intentional.

Would you start your count as soon as he has the ball, still inbounds or wait until he is out of bounds?

Yes, you can have a PC foul on a throw in.

But:

To me, it's clearly intentional.

It would depend on when I consider the ball to be at the thrower's disposal. This is a judgement call by the official and would depend on the circumstances since it is not clearly defined. You start your count when the ball is at the thrower's disposal ... yet the ball is at the thrower's disposal when you start you count.

In this case, I would be starting my count when the player picks up the ball and sprints towards the out of bounds area to initiate a throw in (or contact with another player as it turned out here). In my opinion, this is right before the contact occurs.

Malicious means intended to do harm. The harm in this case consists of bumping another person for no reason, so no, on it's own, I couldn't call it flagrant. But, as others have stated, this is not a basketball play, so therefore any amount of contact could be considered excessive which would in my opinion justify an intentional foul call.

Is the player actually in (or has had enough time to be) a position where they can actually execute a legal throwin? If not, then it isn't at their disposal yet. It would be unfair and not with the purpose of the rule to start the 5 count before they could actually execute a legal throwin. Sprinting toward the spot doesn't seem to be a situation where the player could legally release a throwin.

If he had been trying to execute a legal throw-in, then yes. All that he would have to do is step one foot out of bounds (other foot in the air). But I've never seen that as a definition for "at his/her disposal", but perhaps I've missed it somewhere.

I admit its close. But my first instinct when watching it in real time was that right as I start counting is when I see the contact and have a whistle. And I'd have an Int foul.

I haven't been on here in a long time, but this is an interesting play to look at. I do not have my NFHS books with me here at work and I don't remember the actual wording in the NFHS rules book, but according the the NCAA women's rules book;

Art. 1. The ball is at the disposal of a player when it is:
a. Handed to the thrower-in or free-thrower;
b. Caught by the thrower-in or the free-thrower after it is bounced to her;
c. Placed at a spot on the floor; or
d. Available to a player after a goal and the official begins the throw-in count.

According to d, in this situation, the ball is not yet live. The question remains, however, is the contact incidental and to be ignored, or is it flagrant or excessive (again the NCAA women's terminology). Determining that portion of this play is difficult, especially just watching a clip and not being on the floor working the game. I can see an argument for either a no call or a dead ball contact technical.

I think the bigger lesson here is how the crew handled this situation. This is not a standard, happens every night play, especially considering it was in state tournament play where everything is magnified. I would have liked to see at least two of the officials come together and talk about what happened. Someone should have asked the calling official, "do we have a live ball, or a dead ball?" Stop and talk about how things are going to be administered, and then go to the table. We are a crew on games so that we can talk and get rulings correct. On strange plays like this, as a crew, we also help each other through talking and clarifying the rules portion so that the calling official is prepared to answer questions from coaches and the crew administers the penalties correctly.

Wow, playing the race card. That's where your mind automatically goes? SMH. I immediately knew he was talking about who fell down, and I haven't even seen the video since the thread first opened.

I wasn't playing the race card. If you actually read what I said I was implying that if the poster who I referenced was that he was wasting his time. I may have brought it up, but I didn't play it.

Oh, I'm quite aware what you were saying. My definition of 'playing the race card' probably is different than yours.
;)

For once the announcer got it spot on correct…

“He knows exactly what he’s doing.”

As many have suggested I was merely referencing which player fell down...I wonderred when I posted my prior response if someone would interpret it racially...I am wonderring how many officials might change their judgment on this play if there was a different result?

Only those who play the "race card" ;)

Race never once entered my mind on the play until someone here brought it up.

If there was a different result it would be a different play, and therefore, yes my opinion might change. I don't really understand the question I guess.

Isn't he saying to take the same action and have the offensive player fall down. are you still calling a foul on the offense?

But they both fall down already. If you are asking what if just W23 fell down, I would say yes, it is the same call. You can't just go slamming yourself into people for no reason.

The offensive player did fall down.

Why are we placing the blame on white 23? He takes the ball out of the net and takes the path straight out of bounds. Is the responsibility greater for him or for #5 who just scored the basket?

And if you are going to T up white #23, then you can't just grab blue #5 and pull him away, that needs to be unsporting T for that behavior as that's the only thing I see in this play that was clear as day.

Blue #5 was where he was due to the natural play. IMO, from what I see, white #23 tried to take advantage of that by slamming into #5 and hoping for a favorable call. Blue #5 did nothing wrong, IMO, where as #23 intentionally ran into #5.

Okay, I can dig it.

I see blue #5 admiring his layup and trying to tap the ball after a made basket and #23 trying to start a fast break after a made basket.

No matter what #5 may have been doing, he has no obligation to vacate the spot. A lot of players end up OOB after making a lay-up, doesn't mean the thrower-in can just slam into them.

So what we're really saying is the guy who is about to take out the ball has to go around the player who just scored?

Don't say it too loud, I see a nice coaching tactic to delay the inbound throw in.

Why not? It happens all the time, just like they don't run into us.

And in this play, the W23 never gave B5 an opportunity to do anything. He ran like a missile directly at him.

Are you saying a person who scores needs to immediately move in case the new offensive player decides he wants that exact spot on the floor?

The bolded part absolutely did not happen. How do you deduce that from the video unless you are watching it in super, super slow motion?

That's exactly what happened. Just watch the video, he is reaching up for the ball as it goes through the net. The admiring part was me taking writing liberties. But the point remains, W23 is trying to start his break and he does show urgency in doing it.

I have yet to say how I would actually rule on this play. I just don't know if I would have placed the blame on W23.

What I do know is the only clear part of the play is the taunt by B5 and the lack of any penalty for that.

The only urgency I see for white is an urgency to slam into blue. The way he holds the ball confirms my initial thought, he's lowering the shoulder.

B5 was penalized, although I can't tell what he says so I don't know whether I would have called it.

At most, I would have had a false double foul with the Ts. Blue shoots two, then white shoots two. More likely, double foul with the Ts. Still possible, a DBC T on white, and a talk-to for blue.

Regardless, this is a dead ball foul on white (or nothing, if one so desires), not a personal foul.

This. Exactly this.

He knows the other player is there and he totally gets a shot in.

The kid’s reaction reminds me of SO many other players of his ilk. Total punk and knows exactly what he is doing and whenever he gets busted he gives the old, “What? What’d I do?!?” look.

I’d give 3-to-1 odds he’s the coach’s son.

Absolutely NOT.
He reached up just after he landed, being ready to potentially catch a rebound, but once he saw it go through, he dropped his arms. There was no attempt to tap the ball once it was through the net.
No, W23 was just being a punk. Should have been a T on w23 for intentional dead ball contact.
In fact, this is almost the same thing Kominsky did in the UK/UW game shortly after he got embarrassed by Marcus Lee on an alley-opp dunk....but it was separated by 5-10 seconds.

When I was watching, the TBS feed didn't show that foul. They kept replaying the dunk, but didn't show the foul.

Any way we can get video?

It was after they had gone to the other end of the court and it was only really a quick glimpse and they didn't show any replays.