Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
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.
|
That case play predated the change to making contact with the thrower an IF...who knows if they considered it when they changed the rule for no good reason.
Even if you're right (and I think you likely are), it is still a dumb rule. If B1 can legally play the ball when it is held beyond the throwin plane, they should not , as long as the action is entirely on the inbounds side of the line, be liable for an IF if they miss the ball and hit the throwers arm instead. There is nothing about that play that needs to be an IF.
Reaching through the line and fouling the thrower being ruled and IF, as has always been the case, was sufficient.