Contact with the thrower...Hmmmm...

[Camron Rust]

Ok, you're guys are playing right along nicely....

How do you decide who makes contact? Where is that defined?

Another play....

B2 guarding A2 who curls around a screen by A3 along the baseline and across the front of the A1 (the thrower). B2 trails A2 around the screen and A1 sticks their arms out just as B2 passes by such that B2 runs into A1's arms. What do you have?


I'm not suggesting this will or will not happen, just posing the examples to examine and/or expose what this rule really does. The arguments behind this new interpretation were that it made things easier....but did it?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Ok, you're guys are playing right along nicely....

How do you decide who makes contact? Where is that defined?

Another play....

B2 guarding A2 who curls around a screen by A3 along the baseline and across the front of the A1 (the thrower). B2 trails A2 around the screen and A1 sticks their arms out just as B2 passes by such that B2 runs into A1's arms. What do you have?

B2 is the active contactor of the thrower-in, so I think the rule works okay there.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

B2 is the active contactor of the thrower-in, so I think the rule works okay there.

It's a stupid rule change, and this play is exactly why.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

B2 is the active contactor of the thrower-in, so I think the rule works okay there.

You think that works OK? That is worth an intentional foul on B2 for A2 to deliberately cause contact from B2 just because B2 passed close enough to the endline for A2 to create contact?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You think that works OK? That is worth an intentional foul on B2 for A2 to deliberately cause contact from B2 just because B2 passed close enough to the endline for A2 to create contact?

Apologies. I should've typed "clearly applies" instead of "works okay," as that's what I meant. I'm not judging the logic or appropriatness of the rule - just responding to your question of whether or not the rule change made things "easier" or perhaps didn't. I'm just saying that it's easy to apply the rule as it's written to that situation.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

How do you decide who makes contact? Where is that defined?

We do that the entire game. Why should a throw-in be any different?

Oddly enough, I had this happen today. A-1 has the BCELTI; B-2 is defending inches from the endline, with arms raised vertically. A-1 jumps and throws the ball into the frontcourt, but just before he releases it, he makes contact with B-2's arm.

I had nothing.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bainsey

We do that the entire game. Why should a throw-in be any different?

Oddly enough, I had this happen today. A-1 has the BCELTI; B-2 is defending inches from the endline, with arms raised vertically. A-1 jumps and throws the ball into the frontcourt, but just before he releases it, he makes contact with B-2's arm.

I had nothing.

We don't decide who makes contact. We decide, when contact occurs, who was not legal when contact occurred. Sometimes the player "making" contact is not the one who has fouled.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

We don't decide who makes contact. We decide, when contact occurs, who was not legal when contact occurred. Sometimes the player "making" contact is not the one who has fouled.

True, but sometimes, part of the equation of ruling illegal/incidental contact is determining who initiated the contact. In my aforementioned case, I couldn't legitimately penalize a defender who was contacted by his opponent.