Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
In spirit, I agree. But, as written, the rule defines it as an intentional foul for a defender to contact a thrower. It doesn't distinguish between who causes the contact. Just that their is contact. I think it is a stupid rule.
|
I think "contact" in this case is an action verb -- the defense must act to cause contact.
It does not say "or is contacted by the inbounder".
And, the relevant case play has it as either a throw-in violation or a foul on the offense -- but not as an intentional foul on the defense.