This is an easy T. Of course, you nearly always have to follow this T by telling the coach that they don't get a warning when they reach across and slap the ball. It's a T on the first (and any subsequent) offense.

I heard Steve Welmer talk at a camp once, and he told how any time a game is still in doubt late in the contest, he simply tells the defender, "do not reach through the endline/sideline. I do not want to have to call a technical foul." Seems to work for him.

As for what I do . . . every time I inbound the ball I make sure the person throwing the ball inbounds knows that the throw-in is a "spot" throw-in or that they may run the endline. (I protect myself, and hopefully prevent a violation on the team inbounding the ball.) As for the defender, if they are applying any pressure, I simply tell them, "Do Not reach through sideline/endline." It doesn't matter the level to me. I do it a little less in the higher levels, but still do it.

Any contact with the thrower or the ball is a T, correct?

Now if the thrower has the ball accross the line you can have a personal foul if contact is made or a jump ball if the defender ties it up, correct?

Any contact through the endline/sideline by a defender where the contact is made with the Ball is a Technical Foul.

Any contact through the endline/sideline by a defender where the contact is made with the Player is an Intentional Foul.

Yes, to the your second question, AND the defender can knock the ball away without an infraction being called as well.

Nope. Contact with the thrower is an intentional personal foul. Contact with the ball OOB is a technical foul.

What's wrong with preventive, Mr. Annoying Grammar Guy? I'm more annoyed by prevent-A-tive.

Oh, yeah. About the basketball part. Sounds like an easy T to me, even if you hadn't said anything before the throw in.

I've never understood the attitude that I see here sometimes about, "they should know the rules. I don't need to remind them." What's wrong with telling a defender "don't break the plane"? These are high school kids for gosh sakes. My own teenage kids have a hard time remembering what they are supposed to do in non-stressful situations let alone in a tie basketball game with a few sconds left. What does a quick reminder hurt?

To me, that type of attitude strikes me as "I can't be bothered" or laziness. At the very least (cue James Earl Jones) "I AM REF-MAN. HEAR ME ROAR."

The best refereed games we do are the ones where we aren't noticed. It goes without saying that if I have to make a call in that situation, I am going to be noticed. If I can prevent the violation (or even better, T) and let the kids settle it with their own lack of athleticism, that, by the aforementioned definition is a job well done.

IMO, you have no business advising the player not to reach thorugh the plane in the last second, unless you've been doing this the whole game.

So what are you saying? Preventative refereeing shouldn't be used? So instead of telling a kid not to reach through, before the play starts, I should wait for the violation and blow my whistle, for a warning (or worse a T if they've already been warned), thus getting involved in the outcome of the game, instead of letting the kids settle it? I may get flamed here, but I'll always try to use preventative refereeing when possible.

I stand by this statement from yesterday:

Well, for me, if I wanted to coach, I would have taken up coaching.

Preventative Refereeing was taught to us in referees school four years ago. My assignors like to see it. Its stressed at our association meetings. Again, I'm not sure why this is such a big deal.

Just something to think about - if the kid reaches through, thus prompting the violation, isn't the kid helping to decide the outcome? If the kid starts to reach through, and you tell them not to, and they stop, aren't <B>you</B> then being involved in the outcome, rather than the kids? Aren't you depriving the other team of the benefit of getting the ball back due to the player's violation? If the coach tells the kid to get the delay warning, and you tell them not to before handing the ball to the thrower, aren't <B>you</B> then injecting yourself into the game?

Preventative officiating is a good concept, but we have to be careful when it's used. Otherwise, we would be doing exactly what we're trying to prevent - putting ourselves into the situation instead of letting the kids decide the outcome. The player commits the violation; we just make the call.

Well, shucks....
Yes, preventative officiating can be useful, but it is not always easy to be fair.
I can stand on the endline and tell a player to get his hands off, to get outa the lane, to let go of the jersey instead of making a call. Then, I can go to the other end and not have to say a word because the other team is well- schooled and disciplined. In this instance, I have now disadvantaged the better team, the better coached team, because I am reminding the lesser team of different rules.

With few seconds left, I can remind a defender what "not" to do, but now I have probably put the offense at a disadvantage because:

1. The offense probably will not be defending with few seconds left and,
2. I have just suggested to the defense a way to avoid a penalty which would award the offense.

Well, shucks...I agree!

Should I remind them not to intentionally foul? Travel?

Because you disagree with someone makes them lazy? GMAFB.

Talk about fallacies. I prefer a quote from Major League umpire Bruce Froemming:

"One of the really wrong theories about officiating is that a good official is one you never notice. The umpire who made that statement was probably a real poor official who tried to get his paycheck and hide behind his partners and stay out of trouble all his life."