Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
Grrrrrr. Make me open the casebook. . . Grumble, grumble.
It's there just to dispel the myth about being the "first to touch". Being the first to touch the ball is irrelevant to whether a violation has been committed or not, as I already said. In all three situations of that case play, there was no violation for touching the ball after returning inbounds. So the touching is irrelevant to whether a violation was committed or not. The violation in (c) is for dribbling a second time; not for coming back inbounds and recovering the ball.
|
That's cool. But is that what the original poster was referring to, Carnac? That case play sureashell fits what he posted imo(almost word-for-word). If so, that would make the correct answer to the OP be "neither-legal play".