|
"An alternating-possession throw-in ends when the throw-in ends or when the throw-in team violates."
So, proof by ommission, an alternating-possession throw-in does not end when the non-throw-in team violates. Therefore the chicken, in this case the kick, came first? I like it.
So, simultaneous violations . . .
1. the old 'you caught the jump, they get the ball and the arrow' was resolved a couple years ago, not by generalization but by fiat.
2. the stretch your temporal imagination simultaneous free throw violation of a defender in early and a shoorter's airball is resolved by saying they happen at the same time
3. the current case . . .
4. what other instances of dueling violations do we encounter?
__________________
Sarchasm: the gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the recipient.
|