out of bounds throw-in

[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)

[MD Longhorn]

Contact is both a transitive and intransitive verb. I contend that the rule intended to use the transitive form of the verb. Camron, I believe you're assuming the intransitive form.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Contact is both a transitive and intransitive verb. I contend that the rule intended to use the transitive form of the verb. Camron, I believe you're assuming the intransitive form.

Thanks, those were the words I wanted to use.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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, 9-3-10)

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Contact is both a transitive and intransitive verb. I contend that the rule intended to use the transitive form of the verb. Camron, I believe you're assuming the intransitive form.

No, that isn't really what i"m saying. I wouldn't call an IF in such a case. Just pointing out that the wording of the rule on both sides of this one is poor and could, in some circumstances, be interpreted either way. I think the interpretation that it is an IF for a defender to contact a thrower on the inbounds side of the line is horrible to start with.

Imagine this....A1 waiving around with the ball across the line, trying to find a person to throw it to. B1 waiving around trying to block A1's ability to make the throw (keeping on the inbounds side of the line). The two sets of arms meet. Who contacted/touched who? Do you have an OOB violation on the thrower or an IF on the defender? Both infractions have occured even when viewed with the transitive forms of both contact and touch.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Contact is both a transitive and intransitive verb. I contend that the rule intended to use the transitive form of the verb. Camron, I believe you're assuming the intransitive form.

In 7-2-1 and 2 the NF editor(s) demonstrate that they can present the transitive/intransitive aspects of certain words, "The ball is caused to go out of bounds by the last player to touch it or be touched by it,"
(italics added).
Unfortunately, in the subject of this thread, they omitted such clarification.