I used to mak the same play. But here's the catch. I ALWAYS aimed for the feet. Besides avoiding the possibility of hurting someone, you have a better chance of success. Throw at the jewels, and he stands a fair chance of recovering the ball. Throw at the head, and you risk getting a T.[/B][/QUOTE]Yup,if you don't throw at the jewels or the head,you're taking the official's judgement out of the act as to whether he might nail you with a T or not.If you don't know which way the official might go,why take the chance?

Adam, are you left-handed? Your emoticons are backwards! ;)

Nope :^) Just learned it the other way, so it's easier to type. (^;

If you type them the "right" way, and also leave out the nose, you'll get the graphical smilies. :) ;) :D :p :o

Really? :)

Cool! You guys (and gals) sure have taught me a lot. :)

I guess FED casebook play 10.3.8SitB really horrifies you then,eh?It specifically mentions a throw-in at 4 seconds possibly being called a T. The "legitimate game rationale" is always left up to the official on the spot who has to make the call. I don't think that we should be second-guessing any official that called a T under these circumstances. JMHO. [/B][/QUOTE]

I was envisioning a 5 second closely guarded count, rather than a 5 second inbound -- I can see the call arising on an inbound play, particularly if aimed at the family jewels, since, as someone pointed out it's not a smart play, anyway . . . from OOB, the knees are better than the feet b/c they're harder to move out of the way . . . and my (admittedly unclear) horror was directed at a player trying to save the ball from OOB, NOT on an inbound . . . nor do I disagree that the legitimate game rationale is left up to the official -- my view is that refs should be extremely cautious in concluding ill intent on plays where there is a reason for the play other than trying to hurt the other player -- and I'd be hard pressed to ever see the call being appropriate on the save of a ball going out of bounds as there is not likely enough time to develop an ill intent

I was envisioning a 5 second closely guarded count, rather than a 5 second inbound -- I can see the call arising on an inbound play, particularly if aimed at the family jewels, since, as someone pointed out it's not a smart play, anyway . . . from OOB, the knees are better than the feet b/c they're harder to move out of the way . . . and my (admittedly unclear) horror was directed at a player trying to save the ball from OOB, NOT on an inbound . . . nor do I disagree that the legitimate game rationale is left up to the official -- my view is that refs should be extremely cautious in concluding ill intent on plays where there is a reason for the play other than trying to hurt the other player -- and I'd be hard pressed to ever see the call being appropriate on the save of a ball going out of bounds as there is not likely enough time to develop an ill intent [/B][/QUOTE]Agree,Hawkk.If the player's trying to save the ball from going OOB,it's awful tough to read "intent" into the save.On a throw-in,the player throwing the ball in has time to pick the spot on the defender that they want to throw it off of.It's a lot easier to read the "intent" in that case.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hawkk
[B]Glad you cleared that up.

Sorry I jumped to the wrong conclusion on it. Had a situation earlier this year where a JV Girl got a ball flung full force into her face on an OOB save. She just crumbled to the floor when it hit her. Broken nose and blood everywhere, including me. No T called, we did not even know if the other girl had saved it or not. We went with the arrow to put it back into play.