[Nevadaref]

BITS,
Here are my opinions on your questions:

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

First of all, does it make any difference to the discussion that A1 is LEGALLY out of bounds?

The difference it makes is that A1 is not charged with an OOB violation. It makes no difference concerning the ball's inbounds or OOB location.

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

However, in a throw in situation, play is occurring OOB and it becomes necessary to define when an inbounds condition occurs.

This is the correct way to look at this. Examine rule 7 and 4-4 to get a good understanding of how the NFHS has defined this.

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

Thus a thrower, who is OOB, violates when he puts one foot on the floor inbounds. It is the mirror image of a player inbounds becoming OOB by placing one foot OOB.

I wish the NFHS would change this rule and define a thrower still holding the ball to be inbounds when the player touches inbounds. Then I would agree that 9-2-5 has been violated. However, the NFHS defines this thrower to still be OOB, as long as one foot is touching OOB, and also to not have left the designated throw-in spot, since one foot is still on or over it. I feel that they took the easy way out and chose to only provide a casebook play saying that touching the court inbounds is a violation. Notice that they don't say why it is a violation! I am not pleased that they left the rules untouched, since according to the rules as they are written, the thrower has not violated. It is only a violation because the Case Book play, 7.6.3SitB(b), says that it is.




[Edited by Nevadaref on Jan 16th, 2003 at 02:22 AM]