Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
So......?
What does the Sportorial say?
|
Jeez, you're impatient.
It has the "IAABO ruling" that BayStateRef posted for us. It's exactly the same. But I think the IAABO ruling is more confusing than the FED rule itself. IAABO says:
Quote:
|
The throw-in ends as a result of the Team B violation and Team A retains the ball for another throw-in. But the Team A throw-in would not result in an alternating-possession throw in. That throw-in ended when the ball was kicked. With the introduction of this rule change, the throw-in would not end on the violation as the ball was not "legally touched" in bounds. The subsequent Team A throw-in is an alternating possession throw-in.
|
The two highlighted sentences seem to contradict each other. The first sentence doesn't even make sense, to be honest. What does it mean to say that a throw-in does not result in a throw-in? I think what they mean is that the throw-in is NOT an AP throw-in. But then that directly contradicts the last sentence of the paragraph. Perhaps it's a typo. It's been known to happen.