"Long Jump" on a Throw In?

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Jesse James

This thread gives me two more things to see before I die

1) Seeing a defender draw a PC foul on the inbounder

2) Watching the inbounder launch himself toward the hoop, attempt a shot (I know it's not a try, and can't score, but the defense won't) and have the defender called for an intentional foul for contacting the inbounder.

Wouldn't #1 be impossible? I would have a violation for contacting a defender inbounds at the first touch with the defender. So before a PC would occur, the ball would be dead and other contact would be ignored unless intentional or flagrant. Am I missing something?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

Wouldn't #1 be impossible? I would have a violation for contacting a defender inbounds at the first touch with the defender. So before a PC would occur, the ball would be dead and other contact would be ignored unless intentional or flagrant. Am I missing something?

Yet we have another rule that says it is an intentional foul to CONTACT the thrower regardless of where the contact is made.

So, you could have a foul, caused by the thrower that meets the definition of a PC (perhaps the thrower shoves the defender away), but is also a throwin violation and also an intentional foul. All by rule.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yet we have another rule that says it is an intentional foul to CONTACT the thrower regardless of where the contact is made.

So, you could have a foul, caused by the thrower that meets the definition of a PC (perhaps the thrower shoves the defender away), but is also a throwin violation and also an intentional foul. All by rule.

I think this is a stretch, Camron. How do you interpret the thrower pushing the defender as an intentional foul on the defender? The defender did not contact the thrower. The opposite happened.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Smitty

I think this is a stretch, Camron. How do you interpret the thrower pushing the defender as an intentional foul on the defender? The defender did not contact the thrower. The opposite happened.

In spirit, I agree. But, as written, the rule defines it as an intentional foul for a defender to contact a thrower. It doesn't distinguish between who causes the contact. Just that their is contact. I think it is a stupid rule.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

In spirit, I agree. But, as written, the rule defines it as an intentional foul for a defender to contact a thrower. It doesn't distinguish between who causes the contact. Just that their is contact. I think it is a stupid rule.

I think "contact" in this case is an action verb -- the defense must act to cause contact.

It does not say "or is contacted by the inbounder".

And, the relevant case play has it as either a throw-in violation or a foul on the offense -- but not as an intentional foul on the defense.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think "contact" in this case is an action verb -- the defense must act to cause contact.

It does not say "or is contacted by the inbounder".

And, the relevant case play has it as either a throw-in violation or a foul on the offense -- but not as an intentional foul on the defense.

That case play predated the change to making contact with the thrower an IF...who knows if they considered it when they changed the rule for no good reason.

Even if you're right (and I think you likely are), it is still a dumb rule. If B1 can legally play the ball when it is held beyond the throwin plane, they should not , as long as the action is entirely on the inbounds side of the line, be liable for an IF if they miss the ball and hit the throwers arm instead. There is nothing about that play that needs to be an IF.

Reaching through the line and fouling the thrower being ruled and IF, as has always been the case, was sufficient.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Even if you're right (and I think you likely are), it is still a dumb rule. If B1 can legally play the ball when it is held beyond the throwin plane, they should not , as long as the action is entirely on the inbounds side of the line, be liable for an IF if they miss the ball and hit the throwers arm instead. There is nothing about that play that needs to be an IF.

I agree with that.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

Wouldn't #1 be impossible? I would have a violation for contacting a defender inbounds at the first touch with the defender. So before a PC would occur, the ball would be dead and other contact would be ignored unless intentional or flagrant. Am I missing something?

Case 9.2.5B indicates that the official needs to judge whether it's a violation or a foul.

It doesn't help answer the "PC" question because it just says that it's a Personal foul -- it doesn't specify PC or (just) common or I or F.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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)