DOG Warning ...then the T

[RefsNCoaches]

Defense pressuring the inbounder, breaks the boundary plane causing warning for DOG.

After the whistle for delay, defender breaks the boundary plane again = T.

I'm having a brain cramp...Is that a direct T on that player who violates ?

[griblets]

Team technical per 10-2-1b

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by griblets

Team technical per 10-2-1b

NCAAW: Player/Substitute T. 10-12-3

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by griblets

Team technical per 10-2-1b

10-2 Team Technical
Art. 1 Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this
includes the following and similar acts:
c. Commit a violation of the throw-in boundary-line plane, as in 9-2-
10, after any team warning for delay.

9-2-10 The opponent(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of
his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary-line
plane until the ball has been released on a throw-in pass.
Penalties: (Art. 10)
1. The first violation of the throw-in boundary-line plane by an
opponent(s) of the thrower shall result in a team warning for delay
being given (one delay warning per team per game). The warning does
not result in the loss of the opportunity to move along the end line
when and if applicable.
2. The second or additional violations will result in a technical foul
assessed to the offending team. See 10-2-1c Penalty.

[Nevadaref]

Wouldn’t the ball be dead after the whistle and the second violation would then be ignored?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Wouldn’t the ball be dead after the whistle and the second violation would then be ignored?

I believe the OP is talking about two different occurrences.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by griblets

Team technical per 10-2-1b

And the reason for that is that it would be unfair to give a player T to the 2nd player who happens to violate with a delay of game, particularly since all of the delays are lumped together in NFHS. The T was earned as a result of cumulative team actions, not the individual player.

[crosscountry55]

I think where this gets confusing is because of the player’s culpability in the event of reaching over and touching the ball or fouling the thrower. That would be a player T or an IPF, respectively (not to mention it would double as the delay warning if not already given). But just reaching over and earning a T for it because a warning has already been given is a team (rather than player) infraction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And the reason for that is that it would be unfair to give a player T to the 2nd player who happens to violate with a delay of game, particularly since all of the delays are lumped together in NFHS. The T was earned as a result of cumulative team actions, not the individual player.

Thanks Camron Rust. Good explanation to help us remember the correct interpretation.