out of bounds throw-in

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

A1 has the ball for a throw-in and is guarded by B1. A1 looses his/her balance. Leans forwards and places his/her hand through the boundary plane and places the hand on B1 to stop from falling and recover his/her balance.

Intentional foul on B1 for making contact with a thrower.

I'm kidding.

I'm going to call a throw in violation on A1.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

Intentional foul on B1 for making contact with a thrower.

I'm kidding.

I'm going to call a throw in violation on A1.

What is the violation? I can't think of one unless they actually touch the floor inbounds.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

What is the violation? I can't think of one unless they actually touch the floor inbounds.

I'm thinking.

I think you're right. I would probably have called the violation and then realized it should have been nothing.

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

What is the violation? I can't think of one unless they actually touch the floor inbounds.

Check the note on rule 9-3: The thrower may penetrate the plane aslong as they do not touch the inbounds area or a player inbounds before the ball is released.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich1

Check the note on rule 9-3: The thrower may penetrate the plane aslong as they do not touch the inbounds area or a player inbounds before the ball is released.

Interesting. Sort of makes sense if it is a teammate. However, if it is an opponent as is the case in the OP, that will make for an interesting delima since it is also an intentional foul on the inbounds player for contacting the thrower according to 9-3-10 Penalty 4.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Interesting. Sort of makes sense if it is a teammate. However, if it is an opponent as is the case in the OP, that will make for an interesting delima since it is also an intentional foul on the inbounds player for contacting the thrower according to 9-3-10 Penalty 4.

The inbounds player didn't contact the thrower-in, he is standing there motionless with his back turned.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The inbounds player didn't contact the thrower-in, he is standing there motionless with his back turned.

Originally Posted by asdf

Why would you penalize the opponent for contact initiated by the thrower?

If they didn't contact the thrower, then this discussion is moot there is nothing to call either way.

The rule doesn't say cause contact, just that they contact. It don't matter who causes it, they make contact. It is a poorly written rule/interpretation that should have never been written. It simply should not be an intentional foul at all for in inbounds player to contact the thrower, either passively or actively, when the thrower reaches through the plane....but the rule says otherwise. It says if there is contact between the two, it is an intentional personal foul on the defender.

As Nevada said, there has been some very poor rule writing in recent years.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If they didn't contact the thrower, then this discussion is moot there is nothing to call either way.

The rule doesn't say cause contact, just that they contact. It don't matter who causes it, they make contact. It is a poorly written rule/interpretation that should have never been written. It simply should not be an intentional foul at all for in inbounds player to contact the thrower, either passively or actively, when the thrower reaches through the plane....but the rule says otherwise. It says if there is contact between the two, it is an intentional personal foul on the defender.

As Nevada said, there has been some very poor rule writing in recent years.

It says "opponent contacts", meaning the opponent is performing the action. There is no intepretation or case play that say if the offensive players reaches through the plane and makes contact with the defender, that an intentional is to be called on the defensive player.

That how you've chosen to interpret the rule.

(And the rule is 9-2-10, not 9-3-10)

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Interesting. Sort of makes sense if it is a teammate. However, if it is an opponent as is the case in the OP, that will make for an interesting delima since it is also an intentional foul on the inbounds player for contacting the thrower according to 9-3-10 Penalty 4.

Why would you penalize the opponent for contact initiated by the thrower?

[Nevadaref]

Zoochy has a history of crafty posting. He is an experienced official who is very knowledgable of the rules, and almost never asks a question to which he doesn't already know the answer. I strongly suspect that he noticed the added language in the rules book and is pointing it out to those on this forum.