I just saw this

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by snaqwells

because he's not stepping inbounds or touching an opponent.

Where's the rule that says it's a violation on the thrower to touch an opponent inbounds?

9.2.5 b

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by just another ref

9.2.5 b

That's supposed to be an application of 9-2-5: "The thrower shall not carry the ball onto the court." This is funny already.

Here's the key claim of case 9.2.5 b:
"A1 is required to remain out of bounds until releasing the throw-in pass.
When A1 touches an inbounds player, he/she has inbound status."

Hahahahaha! Good one, NFHS! Now go read 4-35 "Player Location" and try again.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

That's supposed to be an application of 9-2-5: "The thrower shall not carry the ball onto the court." This is funny already.

Here's the key claim of case 9.2.5 b:
"A1 is required to remain out of bounds until releasing the throw-in pass.
When A1 touches an inbounds player, he/she has inbound status."

Hahahahaha! Good one, NFHS! Now go read 4-35 "Player Location" and try again.

Also note "other than a player/person" in 7-1-1, which determines when a player is out of bounds.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Also note "other than a player/person" in 7-1-1, which determines when a player is out of bounds.

7-1-1 is consistent with 4-35, as you'd expect.

I have no problem with making it a violation for the thrower to touch an opponent during a throw-in. But please let's not say it's a violation because that gives the thrower inbounds status and thus constitutes carrying the ball into the court!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

7-1-1 is consistent with 4-35, as you'd expect.

I have no problem with making it a violation for the thrower to touch an opponent during a throw-in. But please let's not say it's a violation because that gives the thrower inbounds status and thus constitutes carrying the ball into the court!

Right. The incongruency is similar to the new backcourt issues.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

9.2.5 b

Interesting. I would have never called it that way. Seems like a stupid interp to me, but ok. BTW, they need to update that case play in light of 9-2-10 penalty 4.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Interesting. I would have never called it that way. Seems like a stupid interp to me, but ok. BTW, they need to update that case play in light of 9-2-10 penalty 4.

But it's a question of who did the touching, I think. If the defender reaches out and touches the thrower, intentional foul. It is specified in the case play, that the thrower lost his balance and leaned over to touch the defender. Basically, the touch kept him from accidentally touching the floor, which is also a violation. (9.2.5A)

So, if this touch, for the purpose of this rule, gives the thrower "inbounds status"
I don't see why the thrower contacting a teammate, with the ball, or directly, would not be a violation as well.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

But it's a question of who did the touching, I think. If the defender reaches out and touches the thrower, intentional foul. It is specified in the case play, that the thrower lost his balance and leaned over to touch the defender. Basically, the touch kept him from accidentally touching the floor, which is also a violation. (9.2.5A)

So, if this touch, for the purpose of this rule, gives the thrower "inbounds status"
I don't see why the thrower contacting a teammate, with the ball, or directly, would not be a violation as well.

Then call it that way. I'm not going to apply the case to that play because it goes against the written rule and does not specifically apply to the play in the OP. The principals of 4-35 and 7-1-1 should apply here, and as far as I'm concerned, they do except for the case where the player tries to maintain his balance by touching an opponent.

My guess is the wording of the case play has been in place since before they changed 7-1-1 to not include touching a person; but that's only a guess. They need to update this case play in light of recent rule changes.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Then call it that way. I'm not going to apply the case to that play because it goes against the written rule and does not specifically apply to the play in the OP. The principals of 4-35 and 7-1-1 should apply here, and as far as I'm concerned, they do except for the case where the player tries to maintain his balance by touching an opponent.

My guess is the wording of the case play has been in place since before they changed 7-1-1 to not include touching a person; but that's only a guess. They need to update this case play in light of recent rule changes.

Many case plays break new ground which would NEVER have been reached by reading the related rule.

Let me think of an example. I know! 4.19.8C

Better example. The dribble rule does not tell us it is a violation to touch the ball twice before it hits the floor, but 4.15.4D says it is.