Only the second time ever for this one

[Mark Padgett]

This weekend has got to be one of the strangest ones I've worked in a long time. Had another weird thing in one of my games this morning. It was an 8th grade boys game and I had to eject a kid after he picked up two technicals. What's so strange about that you say? Both fouls were for reaching over the line on defense and hitting the ball while it was still in the inbounders hands. He did it once in Q2 and once in Q4. To make it even weirder, those were the only two fouls he had in the whole game.

His team got another T when a different kid just reached over without hitting the ball in Q3, but the T in Q2 also counted as their first delay warning.

There was no complaint from the coach and, to his credit, he apparently understood the rule based on his comments to his players when these incidents happened. That was quite refreshing for a change.

Or maybe the reason he didn't complain was that his team won by 25.

I thought about whether or not I ever had this happen to a kid before and I think I remember it happening about 11 or 12 years ago, but that's the only time. What about you guys? Ever have the same kid do this twice in a game?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

This weekend has got to be one of the strangest ones I've worked in a long time. Had another weird thing in one of my games this morning. It was an 8th grade boys game and I had to eject a kid after he picked up two technicals. What's so strange about that you say? Both fouls were for reaching over the line on defense and hitting the ball while it was still in the inbounders hands. He did it once in Q2 and once in Q4. To make it even weirder, those were the only two fouls he had in the whole game.

His team got another T when a different kid just reached over without hitting the ball in Q3, but the T in Q2 also counted as their first delay warning.

There was no complaint from the coach and, to his credit, he apparently understood the rule based on his comments to his players when these incidents happened. That was quite refreshing for a change.

Or maybe the reason he didn't complain was that his team won by 25.

I thought about whether or not I ever had this happen to a kid before and I think I remember it happening about 11 or 12 years ago, but that's the only time. What about you guys? Ever have the same kid do this twice in a game?

Never had it once, let alone twice, or twice within the same game, or twice within the same game by the same player.

[BillyMac]

Mark Padgett: I don't think that I've called this, or even observed this, twice in my twenty-eight year career. I think that I may have called this once, and maybe the similar, but different, reach across the line and hit the player intentional foul, once. You had this twice in one game, on the same player!

Please allow me to interject to bust a myth:
The defender may not break the imaginary plane during a throwin until the ball has been released on a throw-in pass. If the defender breaks the imaginary plane during a throwin before the ball has been released on a throw-in pass, the defender’s team will receive a team warning, or if the team has already been warned for one of the four delay situations, this action would result in a team technical foul. If the defender contacts the ball after breaking the imaginary plane, it is a player technical foul and a team warning will be recorded. If the defender fouls the inbounding player after breaking the imaginary plane, it is an intentional personal foul, and a team warning will be recorded.

I can't believe that I used the word interject. I swear that I've never, ever, used that word before. I had to look up the definition to make sure it was the right word for what I meant to say. Now I'm positive that the ghost of mbyron visited me in a dream of some type last night. No more gruel before I go to bed.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

This weekend has got to be one of the strangest ones I've worked in a long time. Had another weird thing in one of my games this morning. It was an 8th grade boys game and I had to eject a kid after he picked up two technicals. What's so strange about that you say? Both fouls were for reaching over the line on defense and hitting the ball while it was still in the inbounders hands. He did it once in Q2 and once in Q4. To make it even weirder, those were the only two fouls he had in the whole game.

It's my only technical this season -- in a boys varsity game. I whistled it and put a hand up and took two steps towards the table before I signaled the T and the visiting coach was already in the C's ear wanting the T. At least he knew the rule.

[referee99]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

This weekend has got to be one of the strangest ones I've worked in a long time. Had another weird thing in one of my games this morning. It was an 8th grade boys game and I had to eject a kid after he picked up two technicals. What's so strange about that you say? Both fouls were for reaching over the line on defense and hitting the ball while it was still in the inbounders hands. He did it once in Q2 and once in Q4. To make it even weirder, those were the only two fouls he had in the whole game.

... 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.

[Adam]

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.

This would be a stretch, though.

[referee99]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This would be a stretch, though.

Calling the Team Technical or Padgett being a sweetie?

[bob jenkins]

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.

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."

[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.

[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)

[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 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?