Only the second time ever for this one

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No, you couldn't. There's either a case or a recent interp that the "hitting the ball" gets punished, even if it is technically preceded by the "reaching through the plane."

I'm calling it the way bob jenkins suggests, but I don't recall either an interpretation, or case play, from the NFHS. I would love to see such a citation. I do recall some discussion regarding this situation here on the Forum a year, or two, ago. Maybe that's where bob jenkins heard something? I'm sure Nevadaref will be along in a little while to find some obscure, probably very old, interpretation to clear this up. Or perhaps Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. can climb up into his cold attic to find some rule written in fountain pen (remember those) that he got from his buddy, Jimmy, you know, the guy with the peach baskets.

[Mark Padgett]

Think of it this way. If you always ruled that as soon as the hands of the defender broke the plane you would call the violation, you would never have the call of his hands hitting the ball. If it's a single, continuous motion, you call the technical for hitting the ball. If the hands breaking the plane does not directly result in hitting the ball, you just call the delay violation.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Think of it this way. If you always ruled that as soon as the hands of the defender broke the plane you would call the violation, you would never have the call of his hands hitting the ball. If it's a single, continuous motion, you call the technical for hitting the ball. If the hands breaking the plane does not directly result in hitting the ball, you just call the delay violation.

That's the same way I view it, but I would still love to see some type of citation from the NFHS.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

That's the same way I view it, but I would still love to see some type of citation from the NFHS.

9-2-PENALTIES 3. says, "If an opponent(s) of the thrower reaches through the throw-in boundary-line plane and touches or dislodges the ball while in possession of the thrower ..., a technical foul shall be charged to the offender..."

This verbage seems to coordinate sequentially the "reach through" with the "touches or dislodges", considering the latter following the former to be, in essence, mutually inclusive; hence, one big, fat bad thing to do. Ergo, T.

You decide which is more clear, the NFHS citation or my explanation of it. I vote the citation.

P.S. Don't confuse the above-mentioned "reach through" with the forbidden "reach a......". Two different things.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

This verbiage seems to coordinate sequentially the "reach through" with the "touches or dislodges", considering the latter following the former to be, in essence, mutually inclusive; hence, one big, fat bad thing to do. Ergo, T.

Thanks Freddy, but, you've been reading too many of mbyron posts lately, haven't you?

Wait a minute. mbyron. What have you done with Freddy, why are you posting under his name, and how much ransom do you want to keep him off the Forum?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by referee99

... you could have spared him the DQ by calling the Team Technical for having hands through the plane (after DOG warning) prior to the contact with the ball. That is, if you were trying to be a sweetie about it.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No, you couldn't. There's either a case or a recent interp that the "hitting the ball" gets punished, even if it is technically preceeeded by the "reaching through the plane."

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm calling it the way bob jenkins suggests, but I don't recall either an interpretation, or case play, from the NFHS. I would love to see such a citation. I do recall some discussion regarding this situation here on the Forum a year, or two, ago. Maybe that's where bob jenkins heard something? I'm sure Nevadaref will be along in a little while to find some obscure, probably very old, interpretation to clear this up. Or perhaps Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. can climb up into his cold attic to find some rule written in fountain pen (remember those) that he got from his buddy, Jimmy, you know, the guy with the peach baskets.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

That's the same way I view it, but I would still love to see some type of citation from the NFHS.

This one is in the current book, Billy!

10.3.10 SITUATION D: A1 is out of bounds for a throw-in. B1 reaches through the boundary plane and knocks the ball out of A1’s hands. Earlier in the game, Team B had received a team warning for delay. RULING: Even though Team B hadalready been issued a warning for team delay, when B1 breaks the plane and subsequently contacts the ball in the thrower’s hand, it is considered all the same act and the end result is penalized. A player technical foul is assessed to B1; two free throws and a division line throw-in for Team A will follow. The previous warning for team delay still applies with any subsequent team delay resulting in a team technical foul. (4-47; 9-2-10 Penalty 3; 10-1-5c)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This one is in the current book

Thanks. And I'll add in a thank you from Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. You saved him a trip up to his famous attic. It's 18 degrees Fahrenheit in Ohio right now. Not even an Eskimo, either Yupik, or Inuit, would want to go up there tonight.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Thanks. And I'll add in a thank you from Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. You saved him a trip up to his famous attic. It's 18 degrees Fahrenheit in Ohio right now. Not even an Eskimo, either Yupik, or Inuit, would want to go up there tonight.

You're welcome.

BTW have you found your keys yet?