Sat Oct 08, 2005, 02:44pm
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Why do you presume that what's said
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
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?
|
I'm not presuming anything. When the ball is touched, the throw-in ends. You're saying that the ball can be kicked without being touched. Sorry Jeff but that's stupid. It's too stupid to even argue. I'm done.
|
I'm not saying the ball can be kicked without being touched. I'm saying that, if you have two events occur simultaneously, you can resolve the situation, in the absence of a rule for doing so, this by concluding that:
1) Event A occurred before event B; Kick before touch - ball is dead, touch didn't happen.
2) B occurred before A (Touch before kick, throw-in ended, arrow to Team B, ball back to Team A for a spot throw-in)
Precedent for concluding that one event occurred before another as a way of resolving an apparently simultaneous situation exists in the recently addressed matter of catching the tap.
Stupid? Nice talk.
|
Please explain how you can have a kick without a touch.
tia.
|