[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee

I believe that A is allowed to break the plane for the purposes of completing the throw-in, and for no other reason whatsoever.

I wonder what the other JR would say about your belief. I happen to believe that you are reading too much into the rule instead of just taking it at face value. All the rule says is that the thrower may penetrate the plane. It does not say why or why not.

Originally posted by JugglingReferee

I think we need to consider penalizing more than just the foul...

Although you have explain why you believe this to be so very nicely, I can't agree. I think that the foul is the only thing that the player did which was wrong, and so it is the only thing for which he should be penalized.
The foul should be judged on its own merit, not complicated by anything else.

Originally posted by JugglingReferee

we need to penalize the intent as well. Not as flagrant, just as intentional. (Although it could be flagrant.)

If the foul itself is intentional or flagrant, I have no problem with that, otherwise I advocate just calling a common foul.

Perhaps the FED will come out with a case play or an interp and settle this for us.
Nice debate. Thanks.