I just saw this

[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.