Delay warnings

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

With the new 2011-12 NFHS clarification that when an opponent contacts the inbounder, and if a part of the inbounder's arms are inbounds, that an intentional foul shall be charged to the offender; does the offending team receive an "automatic" delay of game warning as we did in the past when we called intentional fouls when the defender crossed the boundary and fouled the inbounder?

Why would they? The delay warning is for crossing the throw-in plane.

Of course, so was the intentional foul (of course, that was another interpretation that has absolutely no rules backing).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Why would they? The delay warning is for crossing the throw-in plane. Of course, so was the intentional foul (of course, that was another interpretation that has absolutely no rules backing).

That's why I asked. "Intentionally" fouling the inbounder delays the game, whether, or not, the defender crosses the plane. I was just wondering if the "intentional" foul penalty interpretation "carried" over to the new interpretation. I don't think it should, but we've seen odder interpretations, haven't we?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

That's why I asked. "Intentionally" fouling the inbounder delays the game, whether, or not, the defender crosses the plane. I was just wondering if the "intentional" foul penalty interpretation "carried" over to the new interpretation. I don't think it should, but we've seen odder interpretations, haven't we?

Fouling anyone at any time delays the game.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

With the new 2011-12 NFHS clarification that when an opponent contacts the inbounder, and if a part of the inbounder's arms are inbounds, that an intentional foul shall be charged to the offender; does the offending team receive an "automatic" delay of game warning as we did in the past when we called intentional fouls when the defender crossed the boundary and fouled the inbounder?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

That's why I asked. "Intentionally" fouling the inbounder delays the game, whether, or not, the defender crosses the plane. I was just wondering if the "intentional" foul penalty interpretation "carried" over to the new interpretation. I don't think it should, but we've seen odder interpretations, haven't we?

Our local interpreter recently attended the IAABO Fall Seminar, in New Hampshire, and has informed me that when an opponent contacts the inbounder, and if a part of the inbounder's arms are inbounds, that an intentional foul shall be charged to the offender, and the offending team does not receive an "automatic" delay of game warning, because the defender did not cross the boundary plane.