Warn the DOG? er, I mean DOG warning?
 

I think we've discussed many times, under NF rules, if a defender reaches across the line on an inbound play and hits the ball in the inbounders hands, it's not only a technical foul on that player, but it counts as a DOG warning against his team. Here's the question. If the defender reaches across the line and fouls the inbounder while he's still holding the ball, which is an intentional personal foul on that player, is that also a DOG warning? If so, and it was that team's second one, could you have both the intentional personal foul and a team technical foul for second DOG warning? This came up this past weekend during a kids rec game I was monitoring.

Here's another variation. On an inbound play, defender reaches across and smacks the inbounder's hand really hard while it's on the ball. Is this a foul or would you rule he hit the ball resulting in a technical because "the hand is part of the ball"?

More newby questions, Mark? Or can anyone play?

1. It can't be both.

2. Would it be a foul if it happened on the court? If so, IF. If not, T.

Call The 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.

If there was a prior warning, then only the intentional personal foul gets penalized. A warning is also given only if the team has not previously been warned. All of that is stated in the four rulings under 10.3.10 in the NFHS Case Book.


I would charge a technical foul using the reasoning already expressed by JAR.