Would anyone issue a T if someone trying to save a ball from going OOB and throws it at the opponent? Would you issue it if you are pretty sure that it was done with some intent to hurt the opponent physically? If so, how sure would you have to be?

Attempt to save the ball from going OOB? No T. Ever.

Let's say a blowout game and the guy throws it at the opponent's head. Still no T.

How do you know intent?
 

The problem is that it is a legal tactic; bounce it off an oponent. Happens all the time, usually off of a leg. How do you know what the players intent was?

Mregor

I'd have to see the exact play to call it, but the short answer is yes, if I was 100% sure that there was an intent by the thrower to injure the opponent, it would not only be a "T", but a flagrant "T" and the thrower would be ejected. Any time that you believe that the actions of a player are designed to deliberatley cause injury to an opponent, call the flagrant "T" and eject the offender.

It's a blowout and its that way because of work, hustle and diving for balls out of bounds, No T. Now if he's teetering on one foot and looking for someone to throw to and then decides to hit the guy in the head, well that's another story. He's probably ejected. I guess I can visualize both situations.

Something like this happened in an Iowa-Indiana game a few years back, but I can't remember who the thrower and throwee were. Also, it was on an OOB play underneath the basket where the count had reached about four. I also can't remember if the thrower threw it right at the other guy's nose or coin purse, but I do remember no technical was thrown, even though it seemed quite unsportsmanlike. Maybe one of the other folks in this here forum can remember the situation a little better...

Unless you can prove that you're fully telepathic, you can't really call the T in this case.

And if you're fully telepathic, you must really have to restrain yourself from calling about 50 T's a game :D

I wouldn't want to do the write up if I called a flagrant on a play like that.

I called one in this type of situation. At the time, I felt that the player threw it purposely at the other player's face. In retrospect, I would not call the "t" if I had it to do over again. Looking at the tape, the "action" was not as cut and dried as it seemed at the time.

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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hawkk
[B]Hogwash! Please give me the rationale for throwing at the face on an inbounds play.

Quote:

Originally posted by TriggerMN

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. [/B][/QUOTE]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.

If I recall, as an Iowa fan, Iowa's Chris Kingsbury was involved. In all likelihood, he either threw the "errant" pass, or had antagonized the Hoosier all night long. Chris was, shall we say, a hot head.

Adam

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. Just throw the ball at the feet and we don't have to worry about it.
It's not rocket surgery. (^:

Adam

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.