Quote:
Originally posted by JugglingReferee
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
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.
|
The flaw is that you are failing to put any emphasis on the fact that the DEFENDER is prohibited by rule from breaking the boundary plane on a throw-in, that in and of itself is illegal, while it is perfectly legal for the THROWER to cross the plane.
That is why I think that the reasoning put forth above is flawed. The reverse shouldn't be true because one player is allowed to break the plane according to the rules.
Tue Jan 24, 2006, 12:23am
Hybrid Mode
