Lil Tester

[JugglingReferee]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee
If it is an intentional personal foul for B1 to reach through the plane and contact the thrower-in, the same penalty should exist for the reverse case.

Originally posted by Nevadaref
However, what I posted before was intended to refute the logic used in your first post, which is quite flawed.

Not at all. They are similar in that they both break the throw-in plane. That was my logic. This logic (equal penalty for equal violation of the rules) is based upon fact. How can something be "quite flawed" when it is solely based upon fact? I just don't think you can stretch your argument that far.

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Third, I think that unless you are going to call an IPF on a play at midcourt when a player with the ball, who gets trapped and is looking to pass, purposely pushes the arm of a defender away in order to make an opening through which to throw the ball, then you shouldn't call the foul on this throw-in play an intentional either.

While I agree that this point has some merit, I think the difference of not breaking a boundary plane is worth something. It may just have to be that this something is a player control foul instead of an IPF.

Originally posted by Nevadaref
would appreciate it if you would edit your post

Done.