Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
3. The reason for granting the exception is that the rule explicitly excepts this case. If B touches the throw-in, that ends the throw-in and the time-frame of the exception. So yes, the act that would otherwise be a violation would be a violation.
|
And that excpetion, IIRC, was inserted through an "editorial" change. Prior to that change, the wording of the rule was such that an airborne player who gained team control while airborne was always allowed to land without violating the backcourt rule...and that made a lot more sense. But, as you say, that is no longer the case....nothing like screwing up a perfectly good rule with an editorial change that actually changes the rule.