Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
Why is a kick any different than B1 deflecting the ball OOB with his/her hand?
B1 is not gaining an advantage, they played good defense or A1 made a poor throw-in pass, but in either case neither A1 nor B1 did anything to keep or lose the right to the arrow.
|
A kick is different because it is, in itself, illegal. a deflection isn't. See the difference?
|
Nope, with regards to this rule, there's no difference.
Again, if the throw-in rule said "The throw-in ends when the ball is LEGALLY touched inbounds," the situation would be different. But it doesn't. 
|
Why do you presume that what's said re: the termination of the throw-in should be acted on first when 2 things happen at once? If you take the kick as coming first, that's it, the ball's dead, and the touch to end the throw-in never happened. Are you suggesting there's something in the rules that tells you to act on the termination of throw-in first?
|
How can you kick it without touching it? One cannot happen first, since they are the same thing.
|
Of course you can't kick it without touching it. So, how do you decide which comes first, the chicken or the egg, the violation or the termination of the free-throw? You need a rule. I don't think we have one. We do have a rule that Cameron Rust has suggested is decided to resolve a similar, though not identical, situation. Perhaps it shows what the rule would be if 'they' get around to making one.
A is not going to get an 'extra' possession. They never finished the one they had, due to B's violation - so they'll get to finish it later, if in fact the chance comes again.
If it doesn't, would that be unfair? It would take some serious backward-chaining, 'goal-oriented' rules to decide that! It's probably not very decidable.