Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
I don't have any answers about this question, but the statement above seems to me to be a stretch, at best. The team with the ball would seem to me to be on offense, even if the person with the ball is an inbounder. The other team is clearly trying to defend, especially when the throw-in is near the inbounding team's goal.
|
If you look at some different rules, you'll see that on throw-ins the FED consistently uses the verbiage "opponent of the thrower" instead of "defender". See 7-6-4, 9-2-10&PENALTIES. I believe that it does so that it's rules language will fall in place with the definitions of "control" in R4-12. Iow, it doesn't look like a stretch to me; it's looks perfectly logical to me from a rules perspective. If there is
no player or team control, there is no offense or defense.