NF rule change brings up another issue
 

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.

This has always been the case, don't see how the rule change is just now bringing this to light. :confused:

Knucklehead hits the ball - T
Player hits the ball - INT (he hit him on the finger, coach) :D

Seriously though, I never thought about INT vs. T like that!
When a player gets caught hitting the ball, they may as well try to commit the foul.

There are other factors to consider. If it is a 'T' then anyone can shoot the free throws. Big advantage. Also the new throw-in is at midcourt opposite the table.
If it has not already been stated, reaching over the boundary line and commiting an Intentional or Technical foul is also a Delay of Game violation.

In my experience, a defensive player who reaches across and hits the ball out of the throwers hand is deliberately trying to cause problems (delay the game, be a jerk, etc.) while the player who hits the thrower is usually just trying to play defense and gets a little carried away. So while I understand Mark's point, I really do think they are two different things.

What A Great Steal, Oh, Nevermind ...
 

Isn't it also a technical foul (and delay of game warning if not already warned) if the defender crosses the boundary and touches the ball on a "run the endline throwin" when inbounder number one passes the ball to to inbounder number two? In this case the defender may not be any where near either offensive player, who are both out of bounds.

9-2 Penalties

3. If an opponent(s) of the thrower reaches through the throw-in boundary-line plane and touches or dislodged the ball while in possession of the thrower or being passed to a teammate outside the boundary line (as in 7-5-7), a technical foul shall be charged to the offender. No warning for delay is required. See 10-3-10 Penalty.

Apples and Oranges ...
 

Also, with the technical foul, anybody can shoot the technicals, including the offended team's best free throw shooter, who, at the time of the infraction, may be sitting on the bench enjoying a cool beverage.

Do you work for the Department of Redundancy Department?
I already said that. It's déjà vu all over again
:D

Although your posts were similar, Billy expounds for those who may not know that a sub may enter to attempt the FT (HS) or FTs.

Not the first time this issue has been brought up; with all of the ramifications.