Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCat
I think I could make an argument using ball location rules that it is a violation on A1 if anybody inbounds touches the ball while A1 holds it over plane.
Ex. Player A2 inbounds touches ball while A1 has it over plane. Ball location rule says ball is located where player in contact with it. here, A2 is inbounds. A1 is also in contact with it out of bounds. He has caused it to be out of bounds. Of course, the case play above tells us that is not the rule. When B grabs it, it's a held ball not violation on A.
I think we're left with the fact that when A2 touches the ball while A1 has it over the plane there's no violation because the throw in didn't end. Doesn't seem right but it's what we are left with imo without another case play.
This area is goofed up. The case play in rule 9 says it is a violation if A1 reaches out and touches another player on the court. Says that touching gives him inbounds status. We know if A1 is inbounds with the ball and touches another player who's out of bounds it does not make A1 out of bounds. Not sure why the opposite is true in the case play....
9.2.5B. See also 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 sit B
|
That ruling and case play explanation is just wrong. Several of us on here said so when it first came out as an interpretation. Too bad that it made it into the book and is still with us.