Would this be 2 Technicals

[Ed Maeder]

After team B is given a delay warning for water on the floor after a time-out, earlier in the game. B1 reaches through the throw-in plane and hits the ball in the thrower-ins hands. Would this be a tech for the second delay of game and for hitting the ball also?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Ed Maeder

After team B is given a delay warning for water on the floor after a time-out, earlier in the game. B1 reaches through the throw-in plane and hits the ball in the thrower-ins hands. Would this be a tech for the second delay of game and for hitting the ball also?

10.3.10 SITUATION D:
A1 is out of bounds for a throw-in. B1 reaches through the boundary plane and knocks the ball out of A1's hands. Earlier in the game, Team B had received a team warning for delay.
RULING: Even though Team B had already been issued a warning for team delay, when B1breaks the plane and subsequently contacts the ball in the thrower's hand, it is considered all the same act and the end result is penalized. A player technical foul is assessed to B1; two free throws and a division line throw-in for Team A will follow. The previous warning for team delay still applies with any subsequent team delay resulting in a team technical foul. (4-47; 9-2-10 Penalty 3; 10-1-5c)

[Ed Maeder]

Thank You pretty much sums it up.

[David M]

Am I right in that it is a player T because he/she hit the ball while in the hand of the inbounder. It would have been a team T if it had been a plane violation.

[BryanV21]

Would you say that breaking the plane of the OOB line is an immediate TF, and therefore any act following that (excluding flagrant fouls) is ignored? Leading to only one TF being called?

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Would you say that breaking the plane of the OOB line is an immediate TF, and therefore any act following that (excluding flagrant fouls) is ignored? Leading to only one TF being called?

Read the case play in post #2.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by David M

Am I right in that it is a player T because he/she hit the ball while in the hand of the inbounder. It would have been a team T if it had been a plane violation.

Yes, that is correct.

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Would you say that breaking the plane of the OOB line is an immediate TF, and therefore any act following that (excluding flagrant fouls) is ignored? Leading to only one TF being called?

Nope, that is not how these plays are to be officiated. The NFHS has instructed officials to ajudge the total action.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by David M

Am I right in that it is a player T because he/she hit the ball while in the hand of the inbounder. It would have been a team T if it had been a plane violation.

That is correct.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Read the case play in post #2.

That says how to administer, not why. And I was curious about the "why".

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

That says how to administer, not why. And I was curious about the "why".

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

The "why" is because the case play tells us to do it that way.

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Would you say that breaking the plane of the OOB line is an immediate TF, and therefore any act following that (excluding flagrant fouls) is ignored? Leading to only one TF being called?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

...RULING: Even though Team B had already been issued a warning for team delay, when B1 breaks the plane and subsequently contacts the ball in the thrower's hand, it is considered all the same act and the end result is penalized....

Breaking the plane after a delay warning is a team technical. Contacting the ball is a technical foul charged to the player. There is only one TF.

[BryanV21]

I asked about the reasoning based on rules, and if those rules led to the case play ruling. It was not based on my own feelings about the play.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I asked about the reasoning based on rules, and if those rules led to the case play ruling. It was not based on my own feelings about the play.

without a similar case, you would never have a T for hitting the ball. the plane is always broken first.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I asked about the reasoning based on rules, and if those rules led to the case play ruling. It was not based on my own feelings about the play.

The reasoning is that the NFHS doesn't want multiple fouls charged for one action, but also doesn't want someone to get away with a major infraction simply because a lesser one occurred first.

What you are contemplating by only calling the first would lead to situations such as only whistling an excessive elbow swinging violation when the offender swipes twice and connects with the opponent's face on the second one. Officials cannot let the IPF or FPF go unpenalized in such cases.

[BryanV21]

Guys...

There is a rule saying that if a foul is called, all action following that is ignored unless it is flagrant. Which I brought up. My question from there was simple... is that rule the reason for the case book ruling?

Smitty responded, thinking I missed the post about the Case Book play, which tells us how to administer the call. No problem.

BNR then responded that "no", and followed that up with the reason.

There was no other thought or question.

[Rich]

Flagrant...or intentional.

Apples...and oranges.