Quote:
Originally posted by Snaqwells
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by wwcfoa43
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.
|
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.
|
I think I've been wrong . . .
"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."
I think we agree that a throw-in that goes out of bounds untouched (doesn't hit a player of either Team who happens to be legally out of bounds) is a violation of 9-2-2 and comes back to the throw-in spot.
I have been assuming, I now think wrongly, that, if, no violation of 9-2-2 occurs because the ball hits a player legally out-of-bounds, the violation is is a breech of 9-3-1, which mandates the ball be thrown in from the spot it goes out. But I now think you're right, it's a violation of 9-2-10, and should come back to the spot.
Hmmm. I've either been wrong, or, if right, am going soft. This is not good!
|
You're wrong now, you were right. If A1 throws the ball in and B1 is the first to touch the ball, and does so while she has OOB status, are you giving the ball to B at the spot of the original throwin? Will you give it back to A at the spot of the throwin? No, you give it to A at the spot where B1 was standing OOB.
The only time the ball is taken out at the spot of the throwin is on a throwin violation. As soon as the ball is touched by any player on the court, the throwin is successful. That player is then responsible to be in bounds, and is guilty of the violation.
Put the ball in play where the violation occurred. [/B]
|
Time2Ref, consider 7-5-2, which orders that " . . . After
any violation, as in 9-2 through 10 and 9-13 [emphasis added], the official shall place the ball at the disposal of an opponent of the player who committed the violation for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation."
I think we agree that in the original problem the throw-in provisions are not violated by the thrower, but, rather, by the player out-of-bounds.
It appears to me there is some inherent contradiction between 7-5-2 and 9-2-10, and that the penalty 9-2 (Section 2) needs revision.
[Edited by assignmentmaker on Feb 9th, 2006 at 02:43 AM]