Throw In

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

I know. The "he" i meant, was the official in the case play, "Is the official correct?" I should have said I think he/she is incorrect.

The problem is Billy tried to take another discussion to this discussion and tried to tie in something that was not completely related. I made a comment that I would have never thought would even be controversial and as Billy does, he wants to dissect the statement and try to find something inconsistent in the statement, while not realizing that I quoted the rule and thought the issue was over. But that is what he does and it is funny sometimes, but annoying most of the time. Because no one was talking about his made up situations in the first place.

But hey this is the same person that came on this site telling everyone what they should or should not say as if he was the only guru of officiating language. Last I checked I never went to his camp to get hired at anything.

Peace

[Rich]

Could I please borrow Billy's belt? He can have it back when I'm finished. Thanks.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich

Could I please borrow Billy's belt? He can have it back when I'm finished.

Sorry. I'm wearing it tonight.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

Jeff was saying that the defender has the right to be in the spot closest to the thrower no matter what ... the defender does not have the right to that spot if there is already someone there ...

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

"Is the official correct?" I should have said I think he/she is incorrect.

Agree and agree.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

Jeff was saying that the defender has the right to be in the spot closest to the thrower no matter what. He then cited one specific play in which that would be the case (which we can all agree on).

What play is that? Maybe I'll join the "we" and agree, or maybe I won't agree.

Again, this is what I'm disagreeing with: "The defense of the throwin has the right to stand next to the thrower".

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I quoted the rule

You never quoted a rule that stated (or even paraphrased) "The defense of the throwin has the right to stand next to the thrower".

This rule (Throwin: Teammates shall not occupy adjacent positions which are parallel to and within 3 feet of the boundary line if an opponent desires one of the positions) doesn't say anything about the position of the teammates in regard to the thrower, it just limits their position in regard to each other.

In addition this rule doesn't address the line of teammates perpendicular to the boundary, or the case of one offensive player in front to the thrower.

"The defense of the throwin has the right to stand next to the thrower" is dead wrong. New officials should not be learning this.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

You never quoted a rule that stated (or even paraphrased) "The defense of the throwin has the right to stand next to the thrower".

This rule (Throwin: Teammates shall not occupy adjacent positions which are parallel to and within 3 feet of the boundary line if an opponent desires one of the positions) doesn't say anything about the position of the teammates in regard to the thrower, it just limits their position in regard to each other.

In addition this rule doesn't address the line of teammates perpendicular to the boundary, or the case of one offensive player in front to the thrower.

"The defense of the throwin has the right to stand next to the thrower" is dead wrong. New officials should not be learning this.

Actually I did post the rule, but not where you were making a big deal out of it in the thread. It was brought up again and I quoted the rule and the case play I believe. I do not have time nor care to prove it to you as that was then and this is now. As far as I am concerned this is really a silly issue you keep making over this, but again that is what you do on this site.

Yes the defender has the right to be in a position within 3 the boundary line of the thrower. Now if you do not get that, that is not my issue. You wanted to get into the weeds of the actual words when I first talked about this and trying to parse every word. And then ironically you quoted the very rule I quoted earlier. Not everything I say on this site is for your personal benefit and understanding.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... the defender has the right to be in a position within 3 the boundary line of the thrower.

100% correct for parallel teammates. "Within 3 (feet) the boundary line of the thrower" (which I've known all along).

That's the first time you stated it in that manner, which is not the same as "the defense of the throwin has the right to stand next to the thrower", which is the way that you've stated it in previous posts.

The addition of the phrase "boundary line" makes your new statement 100% accurate for parallel teammates.

The position of the thrower has absolutely nothing to do with the interpretation of this rule.

The postilion of the boundary line and the positions of the parallel teammates has everything to do with this rule.

Throwin: Teammates shall not occupy adjacent positions which are parallel to and within 3 feet of the boundary line if an opponent desires one of the positions.

[JRutledge]

Again, this seems to be very hard for you.

How many players do you think it would take to prevent the defender from standing next to the thrower? Probably more than one? Maybe? Possibly? Unless you see some very big players, player are not taking up that much space.

Also even if a team decided to be in that situation and put an offensive player right in front of the thrower, then they just made that player likely easy to defend and only 3 players that can reasonably take a pass on a throw-in. But like many things here, have people that will debate the unlikely.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again, this seems to be very hard for you.

It's not very hard at all.

"The defender has the right to be in a position within 3 (feet) the boundary line of the thrower" is correct in all parallel teammate throwin situations, likely, or unlikely.

"The defense of the throwin has the right to stand next to the thrower" is incorrect in all throwin situations, likely, or unlikely

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

How many players do you think it would take to prevent the defender from standing next to the thrower?

Unless the inbounds players are "splitting" the spot, only one player can stand next to the thrower, an adjacent player in the parallel line would be standing next to the inbounds player (who is standing next to the thrower). It's simple trigonometry. Or one could simply use a measuring tape, only one player in the parallel line (unless two players are splitting the spot) can be closest, and therefore, next to the thrower.

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What play is that? Maybe I'll join the "we" and agree, or maybe I won't agree.

Again, this is what I'm disagreeing with: "The defense of the throwin has the right to stand next to the thrower".

I believe it was posted that if A is the throw in team, and they are lined up parallel to the line and A2&A3 are next to each other in front of the thrower, B1 DOES have the right to that spot between them if it is in front of the thrower. But he/she is entitled to that spot because of the "within 3 feet and parallel to the line" portion of the rule, not because they are entitled to be in front of the defender by rule.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It's not very hard at all.

"The defender has the right to be in a position within 3 (feet) the boundary line of the thrower" is correct in all parallel teammate throwin situations, likely, or unlikely.

"The defense of the throwin has the right to stand next to the thrower" is incorrect in all throwin situations, likely, or unlikely

I will go around and tell everyone, "Billy who wears a belt says so" and that will make everyone say, "He's right."

Peace