Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Camron Rust
|
In this case, given 7.5.7, I believe switching the arrow is beyond what is specified. I belive the penalty for the kick is the only consequence of the play.
|
Well, to state the obvious......
R7-5-7 and the case book plays under 7.5.7 are relevant and apply only to non-spot throw-ins. AP throw-ins are never non-spot throw-ins.
[/B]
|
By this sort of reasoning, the ending of the throwin definition only applies to throwins where there is no kick since it doesn't mention a kick.
It the philosophy of 7.5.7 that applies, not the actual case. [/B][/QUOTE]Great.
So.......if A1 makes an AP throw-in and B1 is the first to touch that throw-in while standing on the sideline, the philosophy of 7.5.7 as interpreted by C. Rust sez that A will get a repeat throw-in and also keep the arrow.
And.....if A1 makes an AP throw-in and A2 first touches the throw-in while standing on a sideline, the philosophy of 7.5.7 as also interpreted by C Rust sez that B will get a throw-in now but A will still retain the arrow.
Or....if A1 is making an AP throw-in and a teammate runs OOB to get a pass along the line from him, the philosophy of 7.5.7 sez that B gets a throw-in now but A will still retain the arrow.
Right? Because the penalty for those violations are the only consequence of the play....according to you? And the original throw-in by A1 can't end according to you also because the throw-in definition in the rule book doesn't mention those violations above either?
Great philosophy you got there, Camron. I wanna be there when you apply it.
