Throw In Contact

[CDurham]

A1 drives to the basket and scores a lay up. However, he falls to the ground and slides to the wall. B2 picks up the ball and begins the throw in. Meanwhile A1 is still getting up from the floor from his layup. A1 contacts B2 as he gets up from the floor and turns around causing B2 to:

1) Lose the ball for the throw in
2) Fall either onto the court or not

What do you have?

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by CDurham

A1 drives to the basket and scores a lay up. However, he falls to the ground and slides to the wall. B2 picks up the ball and begins the throw in. Meanwhile A1 is still getting up from the floor from his layup. A1 contacts B2 as he gets up from the floor and turns around causing B2 to:

1) Lose the ball for the throw in
2) Fall either onto the court or not

What do you have?

Depends...was the contact intentional or inadvertent.

[CDurham]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

Depends...was the contact intentional or inadvertent.

It was purely accidental. However, if it causes B2 to a disadvantage it has to be something. But would it fall under the automatic "Intentional" for contacting the player throwing the ball in?

[Adam]

Without having a chance to check the book, my first thought is intentional for the reasoning you cite. OTOH, I'm not sure this play is what the rule was intended to cover.

[just another ref]

The intentional foul penalty in this situation refers specifically to an opponent who reaches through the boundary plane and fouls the thrower. This is clearly not the case here.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by CDurham

A1 drives to the basket and scores a lay up. However, he falls to the ground and slides to the wall. B2 picks up the ball and begins the throw in. Meanwhile A1 is still getting up from the floor from his layup. A1 contacts B2 as he gets up from the floor and turns around causing B2 to:

1) Lose the ball for the throw in
2) Fall either onto the court or not

What do you have?

As I right this response, there have only been three posts to your question. What I am about to say is how I handle such situations. If a player goes down in the manner that you have described A1 doing, I am inclined to stop play with my whistle and make sure that A1 can continue to play. I know that if a player was moving fast enough when he hit the floor to slide in the the wall like your describe, then he just might be slightly shaken up to say the least. This is just me, because I know that I have wear the med-alert that is advertised on late night television where the "mature" person yells: "Help I've fallen and I can't get up."

MTD, Sr.

[CDurham]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The intentional foul penalty in this situation refers specifically to an opponent who reaches through the boundary plane and fouls the thrower. This is clearly not the case here.

But to argue the matter. What is the difference in reaching through the plane and fouling and being "in the plane" and fouling. Both instances involve the player coming into the "plane space" and fouling. I just saw the play today, though no contact occurred when A1 got up.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by CDurham

It was purely accidental. However, if it causes B2 to a disadvantage it has to be something. But would it fall under the automatic "Intentional" for contacting the player throwing the ball in?

Agree with just another ref - it doesn't fit the intentional definition. If it was purely accidental, I'd probably just blow the whistle and give it back to B for a throw in (can run the endline).

[CDurham]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

Agree with just another ref - it doesn't fit the intentional definition. If it was purely accidental, I'd probably just blow the whistle and give it back to A for a throw in (can run the endline).

I agree with not fitting the intentional, but in my previous post I can see the other side also. However, it has to be something if it causes a disadvantage and I don't know if what you described would work IMO.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

Agree with just another ref - it doesn't fit the intentional definition. If it was purely accidental, I'd probably just blow the whistle and give it back to B for a throw in (can run the endline).

While I can agree with not going intentional, I don't think you can just go with a do-over. Call the common foul. Being clumsy may not be illegal, but it also doesn't absolve the new defender from responsibility for the contact.

[refiator]

I agree with Mark. Play should be stopped and and the throw in restarted with end line privileges, unless you deem the act was truly intentional.

[CDurham]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

While I can agree with not going intentional, I don't think you can just go with a do-over. Call the common foul. Being clumsy may not be illegal, but it also doesn't absolve the new defender from responsibility for the contact.

So a common foul can be called for contact on the other side of the throw in plane?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by CDurham

So a common foul can be called for contact on the other side of the throw in plane?

Why not?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

If it was purely accidental, I'd probably just blow the whistle and give it back to B for a throw in (can run the endline).

I don't see how you could do that. If A1 accidentally contacts B1 in the process of getting up and reentering the court, I see no reason why you couldn't have a common foul. If he tries to make a play and contacts the thrower, I think you could go with the intentional, no matter where A1 was standing when the contact occurred.

[CDurham]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Why not?

I'm not disagreeing I have just never seen it. Which again doesnt mean it can't happen. In my mind, I guess from case plays of a player "reaching in" and fouling the throw inner results in an Intentional Foul, I am thinking it can only by intentional.