Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Old School
The results is still the same you moron! It doesn't matter to me if you kick the ball, slapped the ball, intentionally, accidentally, deliberately, whatever freaking adjective you want to put on it, you still knocked it OOB! VIOLATION!!!!!
|
Are you saying the kick and knocking the ball OOB are exactly the same?
Think about it - when does the violation actually occur? On the kick, the violation happens the instant the ball is intentionally touched with the leg. On the OOB, the violation occurs only when the ball touches OOB, not when it touches the player. A1 throws the ball in, A2 slaps it, it bounces 17 times all the way down the floor and goes OOB on the far baseline. Where do you put the ball in play for the next throw-in? Are you are saying the violation occurs on the slap? If so, then would you give the ball to B to throw-in closest to where A2 slapped it? Or would you take the throw-in closest to where the ball went OOB?
Or, let's say after A2 slaps it, and just before it touches OOB, A3 grabs it. Is there still a violation on the slap?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Old School
Okay, I understand where you have gone in and dinked the rule up with the slap OOB.
|
Um, no you don't understand. The rule has not been "dinked up", it is exactly the same.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Old School
Because I slapped it, the AP has ended even though the throwin was not successful. Got it!
|
Um, wrong again. The throw-in was successful because it legally touched a player in-bounds.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Old School
Problem is, if I slapped it OOB, we're still at the TI, if I kick it, we're still at the TI. One rules the AP has ended, the other rules the AP is not only, "not ended", but it is now null and void as if it NEVER HAPPENED!
|
Problem is you are talking about two different TI's. If A1 slaps the the ball OOB, the AP throw-in has ended, the arrow is switched to B, and then B gets the ball for the violation TI, and will also get the next APTI. If the ball is kicked, the original APTI never ended, so the arrow will stay the same.
Both violations carry the same penality except one is now penalized more, and that is the heart of the arguement.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Old School
The rational behind the additional penality is at the heart of my arguement.
|
What additional penalty are you talking about?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Old School
The pay load on the back end, multiple successive APTI in a row changes the original intent of this rule. Not to mention Case Play 6.4.1 Sit D. says a team should not get successive APTI, but your fluky dukie new rule, null and void the AP.
|
Please read that specific case play again, and give me the last line of that play, and how it applies to your argument.
Also, what rule or case are you using to back up you assertion that the APTI is "null and void"?