Originally Posted by Mark Padgett (Post 650285)

OK - let's get ultra-technical (no pun intended). It's still a DOG warning, except the second one results in a technical. Remember, if a defender reaches across and touches the ball before release, it's both a DOG warning and a technical. The reason this is the case is because if on the first time there's a technical for touching, it also counts as the first DOG warning so if there's just a subsequent reach across without touching, you get your second DOG warning and a T.

I hope that was clear. I just mean that the reaching that results in a technical for touching also counts as a DOG warning.

Originally Posted by Rufus (Post 650290)

I understand where you're going and appreciate the clarification. Would the fact that, in my post, I've already blown the ball dead before there is contact with the ball not have an impact on whether or not I call a T? In other words:

1. A1 has the ball to throw in (live ball)
2. B1 reached through the throw in plane (live ball)
3. I blow the whistle for the DOG (dead ball)
4. B1 contacts the ball while A1 still is holding it (dead ball)

The example you provided almost fits mine above, but rather than saying knock it off I'd blow it dead and issue a DOG. If I didn't blow it dead due to the violation then yes, I agree you have to call the T there.

Not trying to argue, just trying to get this right. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Rufus (Post 650290)

I understand where you're going and appreciate the clarification. Would the fact that, in my post, I've already blown the ball dead before there is contact with the ball not have an impact on whether or not I call a T? In other words:

1. A1 has the ball to throw in (live ball)
2. B1 reached through the throw in plane (live ball)
3. I blow the whistle for the DOG (dead ball)
4. B1 contacts the ball while A1 still is holding it (dead ball)

The example you provided almost fits mine above, but rather than saying knock it off I'd blow it dead and issue a DOG. If I didn't blow it dead due to the violation then yes, I agree you have to call the T there.

Not trying to argue, just trying to get this right. Thanks.