[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.




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.

You're over-thinking this. If the ball lodges during the normal course of play, you go by 6-4-3d. If a throw-in lodges, it is a throw-in violation and 9-2-8 tells us what to do. The more specific takes precedence over the more general.