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.

[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?

[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.

[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 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.

[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."

[Adam]

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?

Originally Posted by mick

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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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."

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).

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[Mark Padgett]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

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


(insert rebuttal here)______________________________