D.o.g.

[Triad zebra]

A1 has ball for a throw in. B1 violates the throw in boundary. Tweet, notify B coach of the DOG and enter it in book. Few minutes later B1 commits identical violation. T on team B (per 10-1-5c). Few minutes later identical violation of boundary by any B player. Question: Is this a T issued to the B player
(per 10-3-5d)? Which says a player shall not delay the game by acts such as repeated violations of the throw-in, as in 9-2-10.

[bainsey]

If it were intentional, I might T up the player, but that's quite rare. Generally speaking, multiple DOG violations are team technical fouls.

[SNIPERBBB]

The second T would be on the Team.

You could give B1 the T for the second violation instead of the team T since it is the same player committed the same violation twice. Though I would be hesitant to do that unless the player made the second violation immediately after receiving the warning or right after another player violated the throw-in got the T.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Is there a wierd loop I'm just noticing that doesn't make sense between 10-3-5-d and 10-1-5-c and 9-2-10-Pen.-2?

[Lcubed48]

Originally Posted by Triad zebra

A1 has ball for a throw in. B1 violates the throw in boundary. Tweet, notify B coach of the DOG and enter it in book. Few minutes later B1 commits identical violation. T on team B (per 10-1-5c). Few minutes later identical violation of boundary by any B player. Question: Is this a T issued to the B player
(per 10-3-5d)? Which says a player shall not delay the game by acts such as repeated violations of the throw-in, as in 9-2-10.

If memory serves,
1) Any and all violations of the plane after the initial warning = a team technical foul.
2) Reaching across the plane and touching or dislodging the ball = a player technical foul.
3) Reaching across the plane and fouling the thrower in = a player intentional foul.
4) If #'s 3 & 4 are the first violations, the warning is included.

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by Lcubed48

If memory serves,

3) Reaching across the plane and fouling the thrower in = a player intentional foul.
.

May want to update your memory to conform to 2011-2012 standards...
9-2-10 Penalty 4
Clarified that when an opponent contacts the thrower-in, an intentional foul shall be charged to the offender.
Rationale: Any type of contact on a thrower is an intentional foul. The defender does not actually have to break the boundary plane. This clarification will assist in more consistent enforcement.

Thank me!!

[Lcubed48]

Originally Posted by justacoach

May want to update your memory to conform to 2011-2012 standards...
9-2-10 Penalty 4
Clarified that when an opponent contacts the thrower-in, an intentional foul shall be charged to the offender.
Rationale: Any type of contact on a thrower is an intentional foul. The defender does not actually have to break the boundary plane. This clarification will assist in more consistent enforcement.

Thank me!!

Consider my old fart memory updated.

[Sharpshooternes]

So just so I am sure... Defense reaching across the throw in PLANE is a DOG? Hmmm. I have been letting that go way too long.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

So just so I am sure... Defense reaching across the throw in PLANE is a DOG? Hmmm. I have been letting that go way too long.

The defender may not break the imaginary plane during a throwin until the ball has been released on a throw-in pass. If the defender breaks the imaginary plane during a throwin before the ball has been released on a throw-in pass, the defender’s team will receive a team delay warning, or if the team has already been warned for one of the four delay situations, this action would result in a team technical foul. If the defender contacts the ball after breaking the imaginary plane, it is a player technical foul and a team delay warning will be recorded. If the defender breaks the imaginary plane, and fouls the inbounding player, it is an intentional personal foul, and a team delay warning will be recorded. It is an intentional personal foul if the defender fouls the inbounding player, even without breaking the imaginary plane, however, in this specific case, there is no delay of game warning because the defender did not break the boundary plane.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Triad zebra

A1 has ball for a throw in. B1 violates the throw in boundary. Tweet, notify B coach of the DOG and enter it in book. Few minutes later B1 commits identical violation. T on team B (per 10-1-5c). Few minutes later identical violation of boundary by any B player. Question: Is this a T issued to the B player
(per 10-3-5d)? Which says a player shall not delay the game by acts such as repeated violations of the throw-in, as in 9-2-10.

My take is that the player T is for acts that are truly and intentionally delaying the game, rather than simply violating again while playing the game (even if poorly). The only time I'm going to T the player is if I judge he's attempting to make a mockery of the game or something similar.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

My take is that the player T is for acts that are truly and intentionally delaying the game, rather than simply violating again while playing the game (even if poorly). The only time I'm going to T the player is if I judge he's attempting to make a mockery of the game or something similar.

Forget the boundary plane for now, how about interfering with the ball after a basket, like intentionally throwing it fourteen rows up into the bleachers?

[jdw3018]

That's a T in my book. I was simply making the point that a player who twice violates the throw-in boundary shouldn't (necessarily) be charged with a player technical.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Triad zebra

A1 has ball for a throw in. B1 violates the throw in boundary. Tweet, notify B coach of the DOG and enter it in book. Few minutes later B1 commits identical violation. T on team B (per 10-1-5c). Few minutes later identical violation of boundary by any B player. Question: Is this a T issued to the B player
(per 10-3-5d)? Which says a player shall not delay the game by acts such as repeated violations of the throw-in, as in 9-2-10.

The penalty for 9-2-10 explains it. The technical is on the team for repeated violations.

9-2-10
ART. 10

The opponent(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary-line plane until the ball has been released on a throw-in pass.

NOTE: The thrower may penetrate the plane provided he/she does not touch the inbounds area or a player inbounds before the ball is released on the throw-in pass. The opponent in this situation may legally touch or grasp the ball.

PENALTIES: (Art. 10)

1. The first violation of the throw-in boundary-line plane by an opponent(s) of the thrower shall result in a team warning for delay being given (one delay warning per team per game). The warning does not result in the loss of the opportunity to move along the end line when and if applicable.

2. The second or additional violations will result in a technical foul assessed to the offending team. See 10-1-5c Penalty.