Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Study on 9-2-2. It says that, if the thrower passes the ball directly onto the court, the thrower has fulfilled his/her responsibility. 9-2-10 addresses the responsibilities of the other 9 players during a throw-in. It says: if one of those other 9 is out-of-bounds, the throw-in goes to the opponents at that spot. Just as, if, during normal play, the ball hits a player who happens to be legally out-of-bounds.
To take a simple, specific case, imagine a ball thrown-in that bounces on the court in-bounds. B1 chases the ball and, as s/he gets to the ball, is stepping on a boundary line. Violation by B1.
9-2-3 address a different issue altogether. [/B]
|
I now understand better what you are saying. You are saying that if EITHER A or B violated 9-2-10 the throw-in would be at the OOB point as opposed to the throw-in point. My premise was that there is no cause to treat Team A and B differently which I guess you agree with.
To get back to the wording, I see no good verbiage that establishes that a violation of 9-2-2 (throw-in untouched and OOB) should be at the throw-in point while 9-2-10 (throw-in caught by player OOB) should be at the OOB point. I have taken the ball back to the throw-in point for violations of 9-2-2 (which is the more common violation) for my entire career, however I saw no reason not to do the same for 9-2-10.
However, I will certainly yield to the consensus of the interpretation that the violation for 9-2-2 occured at the throw-in spot while for 9-2-10 occured at the OOB spot. An extra case example would probably be useful here.