Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
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.
|
I agree with what you say, but it's also inconsistent with the reason for the exceptions. In general terms, if a team can reasonably be expected to be responsible for the location of the ball, then they are responsible for a BC violation. If not, then they are given some leeway in the BC rules.
So, I'd say it's "consistent" for B2 to be able to grab a tipped inbounds pass in the air and land in the BC without causing a violation.
Of course, I'd say that *either team* should be able to recover an errant shot in the air without causing a BC violation as well (but that's not the rule).