Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
Okay, but the OP says nothing about either of those happening. It says the ball bounced out, but we don't know how far. If, as Bob alludes to, it bounces so far that A would have to violate in order to get to it, I can see the violation being called on A.
If, however, A1 can reach it without moving from the spot (quite possible if the thrower is remotely taller than a squirrel), then it's not a violation until A1 steps too far, the ball goes in bounds, or 5 seconds elapses.
I'm not going to penalize A prematurely simply because B1 committed a violation. A may have recovered otherwise.
|
I made your argument in post #2 as well. But the impossibility of
A otherwise recovering is what leads me to call a violation on A.
The ball has left the throw-in spot. No other A player may retrieve it, and so A1 is committed to either waiting 5 seconds or to leaving the spot to retrieve the ball.
I won't fudge and say that A1's fumble is a "pass not directly into the court," because it's not a pass at all. And I agree that it's fishy to penalize A "prematurely." He11, the whole case stinks, which is why we need to back up and ask who erred first.
I think penalizing A is a better alternative than penalizing B, who could not have violated without A's prior error. IMO this is not the intended application of the rule prohibiting reaching across the plane during a throw in, and certainly not a garden-variety instance.
Due to A1's error, A
cannot legally complete the throw in here, and B preventing the actual violation does not change that fact.