[Back In The Saddle]

The exact order of events is unclear: Was B1 already touching the table when she touched the ball? If so, this would be a throw-in violation on A and the ball goes to B.

SECTION 2 THROW-IN PROVISIONS
A player shall not violate the following provisions governing the throw-in.
The thrower shall not:
ART. 2 . . . Fail to pass the ball directly into the court from out-of-bound so it touches or is touched by another player (inbounds or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched.

If not, then the ball goes to A at the table.

### Possible retraction of above statement ###

Actually, now that I re-read the rule, I'm confused by the "inbounds our out of bounds" part. It also seems to wreak havoc with the definition of "on the court" that Nevada was quoting. Is this really saying that the conditions of the throw-in are met by touching a player who is out of bounds? And does it really equate being "inbounds or out of bounds" with being "on the court"? Or am I reading it incorrectly?

And now that rampant self-doubt is running amok, I'm going to rephrase my earlier statement as a question: If B1 was OOB by virtue of touching the table when she touched the ball, would that not be the same as A1's inbound pass going OOB untouched? Or is it, instead, an OOB violation on B1?