Throw In Contact

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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 just another ref

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.

I like that description and I think that is the missing link. Accidental but causing disadvantage = Common

Making an attempt at the ball and contact = Intentional

[refiator]

Think about the nature and intent of the rule and act. I can't see even a common foul in this case. .

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

It depends on the situation - too many unknown variables. Was B2 standing over/too close to A1 for him to be able to get up without interfering. Was A1 slow in getting up indicating a possible injury? In that case, if B2 hasn't yet inbounded the ball, stopping play for a possible injury is fully justified as MTD indicated. It's one of those HTBT situations, and since it's purely hypothetical there's no right answer. It could be common, could be intentional or could be nothing depending on the specifics of the situation.