Why Foul on the Out of Bounds Play Was Not a Technical Foul

[colincb]

Around the net there's some confusion about the foul that was called on the in-bounds play from the baseline in the last two minutes which some people believe should result in a technical foul shot.  (Fratello on the TNT broadcast for one)  The rule they are mistakenly referring to however is Rule 4, Section 3, Item h of the NBA Rulebook:

"h. An away-from-the-play foul is illegal contact by the defense in the last two minutes of the game, and/or overtime, which occurs (1) deliberately away from the immediate area of offensive action, and/or (2) prior to the ball being released on a throw-in."

http://www.nba.com/.element/mp3/2.0/sect/podcastmp3/PDF/2011-12-NBA-RULE-BOOK.pdf

Note the term "deliberate".  The rule is meant to address "Hack-a-Shaq" fouls which this was not. Instead, it was a regular foul and as BOS was under the limit, ATL threw the ball in again.  There are various posts circulating elsewhere that are posting sections of the rulebook referring to how to administer the "away-from-the-play foul" rather than what that foul is.  If you noticed, there was really no complaint from the Hawks about the particular play at the time.

[Fafnir]

You're wrong with what Fratello was saying.

(7) two free throw attempts if a personal foul is committed by a defender prior to the
ball being released on a throw-in.

Fratello was saying that if the Marquis foul was before the ball was throw by the inbounder its automatically a 2 shot foul. The foul to give would have been moot.

So basically Horford (he was the guy fouled both times right?) probably should have gotten free throws a few seconds earlier before the last sequence. Doesn't really change the game since he got the foul shots just the same.

[Lucky17]

You're wrong with what Fratello was saying.

(7) two free throw attempts if a personal foul is committed by a defender prior to the
ball being released on a throw-in.

Fratello was saying that if the Marquis foul was before the ball was throw by the inbounder its automatically a 2 shot foul. The foul to give would have been moot.

So basically Horford (he was the guy fouled both times right?) probably should have gotten free throws a few seconds earlier before the last sequence. Doesn't really change the game since he got the foul shots just the same.

This is what I thought when I saw it. I couldn't understand why it wasn't an automatic two shots for the Hawks, and I couldn't understand why Larry Drew wasn't worked up about it.

[Fafnir]

You're wrong with what Fratello was saying.

(7) two free throw attempts if a personal foul is committed by a defender prior to the
ball being released on a throw-in.

Fratello was saying that if the Marquis foul was before the ball was throw by the inbounder its automatically a 2 shot foul. The foul to give would have been moot.

So basically Horford (he was the guy fouled both times right?) probably should have gotten free throws a few seconds earlier before the last sequence. Doesn't really change the game since he got the foul shots just the same.

This is what I thought when I saw it. I couldn't understand why it wasn't an automatic two shots for the Hawks, and I couldn't understand why Larry Drew wasn't worked up about it.

I think Larry was shocked they even called the blatant hold, usually they don't.

I guess he just figured killing the foul to give was gravy, dunno.

[KCattheStripe]

You're wrong with what Fratello was saying.

(7) two free throw attempts if a personal foul is committed by a defender prior to the
ball being released on a throw-in.

Fratello was saying that if the Marquis foul was before the ball was throw by the inbounder its automatically a 2 shot foul. The foul to give would have been moot.

So basically Horford (he was the guy fouled both times right?) probably should have gotten free throws a few seconds earlier before the last sequence. Doesn't really change the game since he got the foul shots just the same.

This is what I thought when I saw it. I couldn't understand why it wasn't an automatic two shots for the Hawks, and I couldn't understand why Larry Drew wasn't worked up about it.

If you watch the replay, the ref doesn't blow the whistle when Marquis is holding Horford-- which was before the ball was thrown in-- but when he pushed Horford-- after the ball left Marvin William's hand.

[Fafnir]

You're wrong with what Fratello was saying.

(7) two free throw attempts if a personal foul is committed by a defender prior to the
ball being released on a throw-in.

Fratello was saying that if the Marquis foul was before the ball was throw by the inbounder its automatically a 2 shot foul. The foul to give would have been moot.

So basically Horford (he was the guy fouled both times right?) probably should have gotten free throws a few seconds earlier before the last sequence. Doesn't really change the game since he got the foul shots just the same.

This is what I thought when I saw it. I couldn't understand why it wasn't an automatic two shots for the Hawks, and I couldn't understand why Larry Drew wasn't worked up about it.

If you watch the replay, the ref doesn't blow the whistle when Marquis is holding Horford-- which was before the ball was thrown in-- but when he pushed Horford-- after the ball left Marvin William's hand.

I couldn't tell when he blew the whistle myself (especially since I was really worked up in the moment), seemed basically at the same time.

[KCattheStripe]

You're wrong with what Fratello was saying.

(7) two free throw attempts if a personal foul is committed by a defender prior to the
ball being released on a throw-in.

Fratello was saying that if the Marquis foul was before the ball was throw by the inbounder its automatically a 2 shot foul. The foul to give would have been moot.

So basically Horford (he was the guy fouled both times right?) probably should have gotten free throws a few seconds earlier before the last sequence. Doesn't really change the game since he got the foul shots just the same.

This is what I thought when I saw it. I couldn't understand why it wasn't an automatic two shots for the Hawks, and I couldn't understand why Larry Drew wasn't worked up about it.

If you watch the replay, the ref doesn't blow the whistle when Marquis is holding Horford-- which was before the ball was thrown in-- but when he pushed Horford-- after the ball left Marvin William's hand.

I couldn't tell when he blew the whistle myself (especially since I was really worked up in the moment), seemed basically at the same time.

They should a slo mo replay of it.

[guava_wrench]

You're wrong with what Fratello was saying.

(7) two free throw attempts if a personal foul is committed by a defender prior to the
ball being released on a throw-in.

Fratello was saying that if the Marquis foul was before the ball was throw by the inbounder its automatically a 2 shot foul. The foul to give would have been moot.

So basically Horford (he was the guy fouled both times right?) probably should have gotten free throws a few seconds earlier before the last sequence. Doesn't really change the game since he got the foul shots just the same.

This is what I thought when I saw it. I couldn't understand why it wasn't an automatic two shots for the Hawks, and I couldn't understand why Larry Drew wasn't worked up about it.

If you watch the replay, the ref doesn't blow the whistle when Marquis is holding Horford-- which was before the ball was thrown in-- but when he pushed Horford-- after the ball left Marvin William's hand.

Perhaps. That would seem justifiable. I suppose the rational would be that there is nothing wrong with having your arm on a player so long as you aren't perceived to be holding them or restricting their motion.

I feel like the refs didn't want the game to be decided on a technicality so they sought the most non-intrusive call.

[RyNye]

Even watching the slo-motion replay I don't get the call. Yes, I see the contact, but how is that any different than what happens on EVERY SINGLE inbounds play at the end of close games? I hate how inconsistent the refs are with this sort of thing. Especially in the playoffs, there are times mere minutes apart where the refs gladly let the players get a little physical and other times where they call the most ticky-tacky of all possible fouls.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Around the net there's some confusion about the foul that was called on the in-bounds play from the baseline in the last two minutes which some people believe should result in a technical foul shot.  (Fratello on the TNT broadcast for one)  The rule they are mistakenly referring to however is Rule 4, Section 3, Item h of the NBA Rulebook:

"h. An away-from-the-play foul is illegal contact by the defense in the last two minutes of the game, and/or overtime, which occurs (1) deliberately away from the immediate area of offensive action, and/or (2) prior to the ball being released on a throw-in."

http://www.nba.com/.element/mp3/2.0/sect/podcastmp3/PDF/2011-12-NBA-RULE-BOOK.pdf

Note the term "deliberate".  The rule is meant to address "Hack-a-Shaq" fouls which this was not. Instead, it was a regular foul and as BOS was under the limit, ATL threw the ball in again.  There are various posts circulating elsewhere that are posting sections of the rulebook referring to how to administer the "away-from-the-play foul" rather than what that foul is.  If you noticed, there was really no complaint from the Hawks about the particular play at the time.

Thanks for the clarification--Fratello wouldn't stop talking about it. TP

[Senninsage]

Well, I just took a closer look at it by running it through slo mo on my dvr.

The ref definitely didn't blow the whistle on the Marquis foul until Marvin Williams had already let go of the ball, so the right call was indeed made. Horford shouldn't have gone to the foul line for 2 free throws there.

Also, you have the rule wrong. The deliberate aspect of the rule you are referring to only applies to a situation in which there is an actual area of offensive action. There was none on that specific play. It was an inbound attempt. Offensive action doesn't start until the ball is inbounded, and, as such, whether the player was deliberate or not is irrelevant when we are discussing a throw in attempt.

The only part of the rule that can possibly apply is if the ref determines that a player is fouled before the throw in ever occurs, regardless of whether or not the foul is deliberate. If the ref determines what a player did to be a foul, doesn't need to be deliberate, then the player who is fouled will be getting 2 free throws. I re-watched it for myself just now, and I'm happy to say that that is not what happened. The ref blew his whistle immediately after marvin threw the ball, not before. I'm really happy about this, because I really thought we benefited from a bad call last night, but it seems the refs indeed made the right call.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

Okay, let's say it was a foul before the ball was in-bounded... wouldn't they get 2fts and the ball? I mean that's certainly not the same as the two fts Horford got anyway, he would have made that 1 and still had a shot to win, right?

[Fafnir]

Okay, let's say it was a foul before the ball was in-bounded... wouldn't they get 2fts and the ball? I mean that's certainly not the same as the two fts Horford got anyway, he would have made that 1 and still had a shot to win, right?

No they wouldn't get two free throws and the ball, they'd just get two free throws.

[prov1ml34]

Okay, let's say it was a foul before the ball was in-bounded... wouldn't they get 2fts and the ball? I mean that's certainly not the same as the two fts Horford got anyway, he would have made that 1 and still had a shot to win, right?

You are correct. If they had called the "foul before the inbounds" rule then they get Free Throws plus possession. BIG difference from what transpired.

I believe the right call was made and it wasn't intentional so therefore no automatic free throws + ball.

[Fafnir]

I missed the last two minutes part of the rules, changes things from what I thought.

Section X—Away-From-The-Play Foul
a. During the last two minutes of the fourth period or overtime period(s) with the offensive
team in possession of the ball, all personal fouls which are assessed against the defensive
team prior to the ball being released on a throw-in and/or away-from-the-play, shall be
administered as follows:
(1) A personal foul and team foul shall be assessed and one free throw attempt shall
be awarded. The free throw may be attempted by any player in the game at the
time the personal foul was committed.
(2) If the foul occurs when the ball is inbounds, the offended team shall be awarded
the ball at the nearest point where play was interrupted but no nearer to the baseline
than the free throw line extended.
(3) If the foul occurs prior to the release on a throw-in, the offended team shall be
awarded the ball at the original throw-in spot, with all privileges, if any, remaining.

It'd have been one free throw and the ball.

If it wasn't in the last two minutes of the fourth quarter it'd just be two free throws per this rule:

two free throw attempts if a personal foul is committed by a defender prior to the
ball being released on a throw-in.