Quote:
Originally Posted by thedewed
Here are the 2 casebook examples for NCAA that seem a bit inconsistent to me. Why does 149 imply that a factor is that A1 "was not in control of the ball when leaving the playing court" when ruling he can be the first to touch when returning, yet in 261 it doesn't seem to matter if someone has caught it (thus is in control) and throws it back onto the court and is first to touch. The player control seems to only be an issue if a player is actually in the process of dribbling.
|
With 149, control of the ball only allows him to dribble. It has no bearing on whether he can be first to touch.
There's no inconsistency here.