|
Nevada
And I apologize for labeling your interpretation as creative. It is simply different than mine - point taken.
I have read the casebook and respectfully disagree that the case you cite sounds the same. Case in this thread is A1 OOB with ball in hand, waiting to inbound, and A2 runs OOB and fails to return promptly. In this case, a remedy was provided at the point the player stepped OOB under 9-2-12.
B under 10.3.4 is A1 inbounds the ball to A2 and obtains an unfair advantage by failing to come inbounds promptly. In this case, you cannot invoke 9-2-12, because the ball is already inbounds. Thus the need for 10-3-3. They are similar, but different in an important enough way that there are different rules that apply, IMO.
As for the inbounds delay comparison, I would say this. If you break the plane, wave around after the ball for a second or two, then make contact, the warning should already have been given and this should not be a T. The violation occurred when the plane was broken, and there was sufficient time to stop play and note the violation. If the plane is broken and the ball contacted in one continuous motion or something approximating one motion, then the T is awarded.
I think that is how the rule on delays is worded and intended, and again, I do not think this parallels in any way the two separate provisions on players being OOB.
|