Two for one?
 

Okay, I just thought of something and wondered how it should be enforced.

B has already received a Delay of Game warning.
A has a throwin, and B2 reaches across the plane and fouls A1.
Intentional or technical? Surely you can't call both on this. But surely the penalty shouldn't be more severe with no contact than it is with contact. Right?

If he reaches across and fouls the thrower, I got intentional, whether a warning has been given or not.

Wouldn't the second DOG trump the intentional ? It's just a T, because of the DOG. Contact or no contact, the player committed a DOG when he reached across. The T is for the stupidity!

So you're going to ignore the team T for a second DOG violation?

This is where I lean.

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.

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

There's a specific case or interp (new within the past couple of years) to the effect that "the final result" is penalized -- so make it the IF in this play.

Fair enough, 10.3.11D.
But that has the player slapping the ball. The only difference here is that the TF is charged to the player instead of just the team. Actually a more harsh penalty against the team when one player gets another foul and is one T away from being done.

In my situation, the penalty gets lessened, IMO, from a Team Tech to an intentional personal. I can see how this could be considered more severe to the player, in that it's now one more personal for the player rather than just a team foul.

So. to quote that one chick from that one show way back when microwave ovens were novelties; "Never mind."

You give the penalty laid out in the rules.

Iow it doesn't matter what you find backwards. :D

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....

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. :)

Who You Gonna Call ??? Mythbusters ...
 

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 agree. I agreed earlier.

I will say again, though, that I think it's odd that a player slapping the ball in this situation gets penalized more severely than a player who slaps the thrower. It's a quirk in the rules, though, in that you can't call a T for live ball contact (they could make an exception for this, I think).

Even if the defender punches the thrower in the face, it's still a personal foul.

Stop thinking of a technical foul as a more severe penalty than a personal foul. They are simply different penalties for different situations. You cannot give a T for a situation in which a player makes physical contact with an opposing player during a live ball. It's that simple.

By the same token, you can't give a player a personal foul when there isn't physical contact with an opposing player. That is why the ONLY penalty that you can assess to a player who slaps THE BALL out of the thrower's hands is a technical foul. Just the way the rules work.

I guess you could make a case that a technical against a player is more severe than an intentional personal foul. Although the penalty on the court is virtually identical (2 shots and possession), the intentional personal counts 20% toward DQ while a player technical counts 50% toward DQ and at the same time 20% (if the other four fouls on that player are personals).

Of course, a flagrant is the most severe as it has the same penalty (2 shots and possession) but counts 100% toward DQ.

BTW - "DQ" is "disqualification", not "Dairy Queen" because if it was that, players would be trying to be DQ'd. :rolleyes:

Nevada, I know the way the rules work on this, and I don't think it's so inequitable that it needs review. But you can't tell me a technical foul is not more severe than an intentional personal.

1. Any team member can shoot the FT for the tech.
2. Only 2 Ts and the player is done. It takes 5 personal fouls for that.

Whether it's equitable or not, the penalty is more severe for the technical. That's not really debatable.

You certainly have a point, but it seems that you are causing yourself undue stress by thinking of this in that manner. Perhaps this is why the NCAA went to the Class A/Class B system for technical fouls and put contacting the ball while it is on the OOB side of the throw-in boundary plane as a Class B, which doesn't count towards disqualification.

It seems to me that the only real inequity lies in the 2 Ts and the player is DQ'd, while a player is allowed to commit FIVE intentional personal fouls before he is done.

I can agree with that. I wouldn't call it stress, though.

When trying to wrap our minds around this, we might try looking at it from the standpoint of the rules makers.

Reaching over the line gets a DoG warning and then a T in order to provide a disincentive. The warning isn't much of a disincentive. What other option would we have besides a T for the second (and later) offenses?

Contacting the thrower is a personal foul: it's illegal contact during a live ball. We want a stiffer disincentive for this kind of contact, so by rule we make it an intentional foul. The only other option here would be flagrant, which seems too much.

Contacting the ball while it's in the thrower's hands is not a personal foul, but we want a disincentive for that too. So it needs to be a T, also.

It's true that in order to call the IF for contacting a thrower the defender must also have violated the line/plane restriction. But since these are all parts of one act (fouling the thrower) I agree with Bob (which one ought always to do, btw) and would penalize the "result" or the act itself and not its constituents.

Unless the thrower punches him back. Then it's a fight, and a double technical foul.


(insert rebuttal here)______________________________

Rebuttal inserted as requested.

Fighting is a double flagrant personal foul if the fight occurs when the ball is live. If the ball is dead, a fight occurring at that time is a double flagrant technical foul.

When in doubt, follow the rules.

I agree.

Player Technical 10-3-8: A player shall not be charged with fighting.

4-18: Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live.

A single punch during a live ball can be called a flagrant personal. When the punch results in further action, it is now part of a fight. See above.

In the first place, how would this be possible? At most, it could be a false double. The first punch, makes the ball dead. Personal followed by a technical.

Secondly 10-3-8 does not mention live or dead ball. Fighting is a technical foul.
Period. If you're hung up on the concept that live ball contact is a personal foul, consider that there is more to a fight than contact. The fight started with the start of the swing, or the contemplation of making that swing, or possibly words which were exchanged before any of this. Is any and all of this not the ultimate example of unsporting behavior?

And, oh, yeah, I forgot about this one.

4.18.2: A1 dunks over B1 and then taunts B1. B1 retaliates and punches A1.
Both A1 and B1 are charged with a flagrant technical foul for fighting and are disqualified.

Follow the rules means that you need to read and know the rules first. Did you even bother to read the case book play that I cited, JAR?

1)<b><u>Casebook play 10.4.5SitA:</u></b> Post players begin punching each other <b>AND PLAY IS STOPPED</b>.
<b>RULING:</b>A1 and B1 are charged with flagrant fouls and are disqualified, but no free throws result from the double <b>PERSONAL</b> flagrant fouls</b>.

2)<b><u>Casebook play 10.4.5SitB:</u></b> A fight breaks out between A1 and B1 during a <b>DEAD</b> ball and clock-stopped situation.
<b>RULING:</b> A1 and B1 are charged with flagrant <b>TECHNICAL</b> fouls and are disqualified.


The FED drew you a roadmap to follow with these 2 case plays. Note that both are under a section titled "ENTERING COURT DURING FIGHT". In #1 above, the fight occurred during a live ball. The result is a double flagrant PERSONAL foul. In #2 above, the fight occurred during a dead ball. The result is a double flagrant TECHNICAL foul.

Whatinthehell more do you want?:confused:

I read it. Same as I read it every time this comes up. You consider this to be a road map on how to call this play. The information you cite is all under 10-4, which deals with bench technicals. The mention of the fight itself is merely a side note, and has nothing to do with this rule.

10-3, on the other hand, deals with player technicals. It says that a player shall not be charged with fighting. How much clearer can that be?

Also: Penalties: Rule 10 summary 8. Fighting: a. Players on the court: (2) Number of participant are not corresponding............. Offended team awarded a division line throw in.

This summary does not go into technical vs. personal or live vs. dead ball, but if there was any chance of this being called a personal, why wouldn't it mention the possibility of a throw-in at the spot of the foul?

The one thing we can all agree on is that nothing has changed since "yesterday" when we had this exact same discussion. Please, give it a rest.

Don't you think that maybe...just maybe...you're starting to really overstep your bounds as a moderator?

Maybe I'm wrong but I really don't think that moderator duties include telling posters what rules/situations they can or can't discuss.

You've succeeded admirably in getting rid of the fun'n'games that used to be part of this forum; now you want to get rid of legitimate rules discussions also..simply because you personally are tired of some of them.

You win. I will give "it" and <b>YOUR</b> forum a rest.