Two for one?

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by just another ref

9-2-10 Penalty: If an opponent of the thrower reaches through the throw-in boundary line plane and fouls the thrower, an intentional personal foul shall be charged to the offender. No warning for delay required.


When a player simply reaches through the plane and doesn't touch anything, the result is a delay of game warning, or a technical foul if a warning has been given.

When a player reaches through the plane and fouls the thrower, or touches the ball, this is a foul, which takes precedence over the delay of game.

I concur. It's an intentional even if you've given a warning for DoG previously.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

9-2-10 Penalty: If an opponent of the thrower reaches through the throw-in boundary line plane and fouls the thrower, an intentional personal foul shall be charged to the offender. No warning for delay required.


When a player simply reaches through the plane and doesn't touch anything, the result is a delay of game warning, or a technical foul if a warning has been given.

When a player reaches through the plane and fouls the thrower, or touches the ball, this is a foul, which takes precedence over the delay of game.

Originally Posted by zm1283

I concur. It's an intentional even if you've given a warning for DoG previously.

So you're giving a less severe penalty when there's contact than when there is no contact. I find this backwards.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So you're giving a less severe penalty when there's contact than when there is no contact. I find this backwards.

You give the penalty laid out in the rules.

Iow it doesn't matter what you find backwards.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You give the penalty laid out in the rules.

Iow it doesn't matter what you find backwards.

You're right. I will say I find it odd that a player reaching across and hacking his opponent's hand gets an intentional foul while a player reaching across and hitting the ball gets a T.

Nevertheless....

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So you're giving a less severe penalty when there's contact than when there is no contact. I find this backwards.

Why do you consider an intentional foul "less severe" than a team technical? Or are you comparing the intentional foul to slapping the ball?

[mick]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Why do you consider an intentional foul "less severe" than a team technical? Or are you comparing the intentional foul to slapping the ball?

I agree [I think] with you, Mark.
The Intentional Foul is more severe, and specifically punishes the individual as well as adding to the team foul total.

[BillyMac]

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.