[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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]

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. [/B][/QUOTE]

Apples and Oranges...

I agree with you on all of these...the touching in your first two cases is itself a legal touch. It is only by the location of the touch that a violation occurs. The throwin is clearly defined to be legal when touched by a player who is OOB....it is an OOB violation.

In the last example, it is a throwin violation by the throwin team...they lose the arrow as a direct result of their violation.

We're talking about team B's violation where the contact with the ball itself is the illegal act.

I await the day an "editorial revision" to the rules confirm my opinion.