View Single Post
  #89 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 20, 2019, 02:33pm
JRutledge JRutledge is offline
Do not give a damn!!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,126
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post
Not sure if I'm late for the party on this one, but has this 2007,08 Interpretation been cited?

SITUATION 3: During an alternating-possession throw-in for Team A, thrower A1 passes the ball directly on the court where it contacts (a) A2 or (b) B2, while he/she is standing on a boundary line. RULING: Out-of-bounds violation on (a) A2; (b) B2. The player was touched by the ball while out of bounds, thereby ending the throw-in. The alternating-possession arrow is reversed and pointed toward Team B's basket when the throw-in ends (when A2/B2 is touched by the ball). A throw-in is awarded at a spot nearest the out-of-bounds violation for (a) Team B; (b) Team A. (4-42-5; 6-4-4; 9-2-2; 9-3-2)
That is why I said if there was an interpretation I would be willing to change my mind. But obviously, if you think about it what else would it be if you really think of why we are calling the violation?

"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote