player control
 

Having a discussion on weather you have player control on a throw in. the wording in the rule changed with team control on a throw in rule. To ahve player control you must be holding or dribbling a live ball. the old wording said inbounds. now it does not. What say u? player control on throw in?

Is it really relevant? I suppose if the foul occured on the thrower-in, u could rule player control. Whether player or team control, the outcome is the same ... no free throws if the other team is in the bonus.

I say yes.

Under the new rules changes, yes. Doesn't seem to really matter, though.

How is the thrower supposed to commit a player-control foul?

Not as hard as you might think.

Although as soon as he touches the defender in bounds, he commits a throw in violation. So, the only way I'm calling the foul is if he goes intentional or flagrant.

Actually there's nothing under the list of throw-in violations in Rule 9 which deals with the thrower touching the defender, only the other way around. He/She can't leave the designated spot nor can they walk the ball onto the court so by the time they did either of those things they wouldn't have player control anymore.

Really?

Read the note in 9-2-10. Also case 9.2.5B.

9.2.5 SITUATION B: A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in and is being guarded by B1. Before releasing the ball, A1 loses his/her balance, reaches out and puts his/her hand on B1 (who is inbounds) in an effort to regain his/her balance.

RULING: Throw-in violation by A1. 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. However, if the contact on B1 is illegal, a personal foul shall be called. (9-2-10 Note)

See 9-2-10 note.

I"m confused
 

Didn't we just have a pretty lengthy thread about thrower-in A1 touching A2 with the ball and then pulling it back?

I thought the consensus was no violation. It appears Snags has some caseplays that would point to a violation now.

As I commented in that thread: the rationale given in the case for calling this a violation is that the player carried the ball into the court, which is absurd. Touching a player inbounds does not give the thrower inbounds status.

I'm fine with calling this a violation, but it will need to be defined independently.

Right. While it's hard for a near hand-off to occur without player-to-player contact, I see no reason to extend this peculiar rule to the play from the other thread. If A1 doesn't actually touch another player on the court before he releases the throw in pass; he hasn't done anything wrong.

Fine distinction. Ball v Hand I suppose. I can live with that. Putting it into my database that way.