Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Mark,let me point out three very obvious things to you:
1)Rule 9-2-Penalty(4) states "If an opponent(s) of the thrower reaches through the boundary plane and fouls the thrower,an intentional personal foul shall be charged to the defender.No warning or delay required.".It does NOT state that you also charge a technical foul to the defender.The language used is precise and specific!
2)Rule 9-2-4Penalty(3) states "If an opponent of a thrower reaches through the throw-in line boundary plane and touches or dislodges the ball,a technical foul shall be charged to the defender.No warning for delay required.".It does NOT state that you can charge two technical fouls to the defender for the two separate acts(breaking the boundary plane AND hitting the ball).Again,the language used is precise and specific!
3)You have already changed your call from your original post.In your original post,you stated that B got a technical foul followed by a personal foul.You now admit(while hiding it in your second 10,000 word essay)that it cannot be a personal foul by rule and you were wrong-just as I pointed out.
The rationale that you are trying to use is not backed up anywhere in the rule or case books,and never has been.You and Hannibal completely blew this one.Before you get writer's cramp responding,why don't you just e-mail someone on the FED rule commitee and get their opinion.
Tony,don't you ever sleep?Try reading Mark's reply again.Might help! 
|
I never did hide my change of heart; I said I was changing my ruling in the second sentence of my very first paragraph (there were only two sentences in that paragraph) of my second posting. How is that hiding? I stated up front that I had reconsidered some of my positions.
I have always agreed with you concerning your first two points above. Both of those penalties deal with Team B committing an infraction of the rules before NFHS R4-S46-A1 has been invoked. Why? By definition, the throw-in violation by B1 is supposed to cause the ball to become dead. Meaning that that in: Penalty 3, B1's touching of the ball is to be ignored because the ball is already dead unless in the official's judgment B1's touching the ball is unsportsmanlike; Penalty 4, B1's contact with A1 is to be ignored because the ball is already dead unless in the official's judgment B1's contact with A1 is unsportsmanlike. BUT the NFHS did not want the contact with the ball or the contact with A1 to be ignored. Therefore the Penalties 3 and 4 presume that R4-S46-A1 has not been invoked yet, the oficial acknowledges the throw-in violation by B1, by issuing an official team warning, but penalizes the TF in 3 and the IPF in 4 because these infractions and their penalties are more severe than the penalty for the throw-in.
Re-read my second post. My second post deals with how to deal with the original play that started this discussion [my Play 1c(i, ii, iii)], and that is when B1 reached thru the boundary-line plane and made contact with A1, an official team warning for R4-S46-A1 was already in the scorebook. The instant that B1 reached thru the boundary-line plane Team B had committed a technical foul and this technical foul cannot be ignored. The problem is to how to handle B1's contact with A1 and that is what I tried to address in my second post.
And yes I do intend to email Mary Struckhoff at NFHS as well as a few past and present members of the NFHS Rules Committee for their learned opinions.