Two for one?

[Adam]

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?

[just another ref]

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

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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?

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!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

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!

This is where I lean.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

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.

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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?

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.

[Adam]

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."

[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.