Intent to hurt

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Snaqwells
[/B]

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?

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Snaqwells
It's not rocket surgery. (^:

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

[Adam]

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

[ChuckElias]

If you type them the "right" way, and also leave out the nose, you'll get the graphical smilies.

[Adam]

Really?

[Adam]

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

[hawkk]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Sorry, this is just part of the game. The count is at 4, he needs to get rid of the ball. You HAVE to throw it at a part of the opponent where it is likely to bounce off him and out of bounds. I've been the thrower and the throwee on a lot of these, and I'd be horrified if a ref called a T, regardless of where the ball was thrown, so long as there is a legitimate game rationale for having thrown the ball at the opponent.

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by hawkk
[/B]

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.

[RecRef]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hawkk
[B]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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

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.