Quote:
Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle
This all reads very clear to me, so I'm not sure where the confusion comes from.
NFHS 6-4-3d: ... An alternating-possession throw-in shall result when: A live ball lodges between the backboard and ring or comes to rest on the flange, unless a free throw or throw-in follows.
|
The confusion, if you want to call it that, comes from the fact that the above statement alone is not true. It seems that it would be simple enough to note the exception.
Quote:
|
NOTE: Any rules statement is made on the assumption that no infraction is involved unless mentioned or implied. If such infraction occurs, the rule governing it is followed. [/i]
|
This is true, up to a point. If, after the ball lodges, A1 punches B1, it would be a technical foul and we would enforce that rule. That is obviously a separate infraction.
Something else happened.
But, in the case at hand, what happens
in the rule statement itself in the one situation is the infraction. This is a big difference, in my opinion.
An alternating-possession throw-in shall result when:
A live ball lodges between the backboard and ring or comes to rest on the flange, unless a free throw or throw-in follows.
Nothing else happened. A free throw or throw-in was not to follow. But an AP throw-in is still not the result.