View Single Post
  #68 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 08, 2005, 07:28pm
assignmentmaker assignmentmaker is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 508
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do you presume that what's said

Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Other way around, the throw-in didn't end, because the ball became dead on the kick - there is not basis in the rules to say that a live ball doesn't become dead when intentionally kicked. Is there?
That's a double negative, so you're saying:

"there is basis in the rules to say that a live ball does become dead when intentionally kicked."

That's a true statement. What's your point?
Right. If you apply the rule governing a kick first, the ball is dead and the throw-in didn't end. You - and I, actually - would prefer to apply the rule governing the throw-in first. Throw-in ends, then kick happens. Ball to Team A for a spot throw-in. But there is no basis in the rules - such as they are - for deciding which rule to apply first when these particular events, touch and kick, happen simultaneously.

There are probably other such similar situations. Rule 'interaction' has apparently not been considered for ever possible instance. They should. That's why they get the big bucks.
__________________
Sarchasm: the gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the recipient.
Reply With Quote