NF rule change brings up another issue

[Mark Padgett]

This past weekend during spring league, I was discussing the new rule change on throw-ins with my partner. He brought up a point about the penalties that occur on throw-ins by a defender. He said that the penalty for reaching across and hitting the ball was actually harsher than the penalty for reaching across and fouling the inbounding player, and that didn't seem logical. Why should a penalty for a DOG be more harsh than a penalty for doing almost the same act but hitting the player, not the ball.

Here's his explanation. Reaching across and hitting the ball is a technical on the defender. The foul counts as one of the five toward his DQ but also counts as one of the two Ts toward his DQ. If, instead, he hits the player and commits an intentional foul, the foul only counts towards his five and nothing else (of course, they both count as team fouls).

I never thought about it before, but I guess he's got a point, even though it's a minor one. It does seem somewhat inequitable. BTW - does the intentional foul also count as the first DOG if none had happened previously? If so, does the new rule about the defender committing the foul when the inbounding player has his hands over the court make a difference in that?

Some food for thought, I think.