[Back In The Saddle]

I recant my earlier statement about skating on thin, non-rules-backed ice. Upon further review, it appears that there is a solid basis for claiming that the ball never became live and the violation should be ignored.

It is certainly true that 6-1-2-b says “The ball becomes live when: On a throw-in, it is at the disposal of the thrower.” That sounds pretty authoritative, pretty absolute. It sounds that way because the rules committee opted not to complicate 6-1-2 with details about when it isn't true. But they did attach the following note directly to 6-1-2: "Any rules statement is made on the assumption that no infraction is involved unless mentioned or implied. If such infraction occurs, the rule governing it is followed. For example, a game or extra period will not start with a jump ball if a foul occurs before the ball becomes live." So we need to consider that there are circumstances where some other rule takes precedence over 6-1-2.

5-8-2-c & d say: "Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official: ...Stops play: ...Because of unusual delay in getting a dead ball live." or "...For any other situations or any emergency." Whether you consider stopping play to bring in subs to be an "unusual delay" or just "any other situation," the official is clearly permitted to do it, and by doing so has caused time-out.

Now you may certainly argue that while the T did stop play, the L subsequently started it again by giving the thrower the ball. But 5-9-1 says: "After time has been out, the clock shall be started when the official signals time-in. If the official neglects to signal, the timer is authorized to start the clock as per rule, unless an official specifically signals continued time-out."

How does an official stop play and cause time-out to occur? By putting his hand up and blowing his whistle. How does an official signal continued time-out? By keeping his hand up. Does continued time-out indicate a dead ball, of course it does.

The argument was made that since the T didn't sound his whistle to stop the throw-in, the ball became live and the subsequent play must stand. However, "The official's whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead (it is already dead)." Since the ball cannot be live during continued time-out, and our intrepid T was signaling continued time-out, "it is already dead", lack of whistle not withstanding.

Also, consider the equal authority clause: “No official has the authority to set aside or question decisions made by the other official(s)” there is at least one notable exception, the timer’s decision to start the clock “as per rule” is specifically set aside by the official’s decision to signal continued time-out. And if the clock cannot start, how can we sensibly argue that the ball should be live anyway? To do so would force the thrower into a nonsensical paradox: The ball becomes live when handed to the thrower, but the clock cannot start even if the thrower passes the ball inbounds. The only thing he can do successfully is violate. Such an argument also ignores 6-1-2-Note.

So, when an official is signaling continued time-out, and his partner erroneously puts the ball at the disposal of the thrower, that official has very solid backing to rule that the ball never became live and any subsequent action (except perhaps intentional and flagrant fouls) should be ignored.