Lil Tester

[JugglingReferee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

I understand your point more clearly, now.

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

If the reason he breaks the plane is to do something that is already penalized (a foul), then he clearly has abused that provision. I think we need to consider penalizing more than just the foul... we need to penalize the intent as well. Not as flagrant, just as intentional. (Although it could be flagrant.)

In this case, A1 clearly abused that privilege to foul. He is using a provision for a reason other than it's intent, and that causes personal contact. My vote is to rule as intentional.

[MichiganOfficial]

I guess a argument can be made for both sides, agree?
This is how I viewed it,( personal opinion )

1.Is the ball live? Yes
2.Are the actions of A1 accidental? No
3.Does A1 cause illegal contact? Yes
4.Is the contact by A1 intentional? Yes

There for I would call an intentional personal foul.
* If you choose not to agree I can live with that, that is
our right as officials to agree to disagree.

[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.

[MichiganOfficial]

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.

As I read this statement I cant help but wonder why you make the statement that the only thing the player did wrong was the foul. That is and was the only thing in question, so for someone to say that the player just commited a common foul is crazy. The player intentionaly moved the defender out of the way to gain an advantage.
Players intent- Intentional