Another throw in sit

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

If it was never touched inbounds, go back to original throw in spot

That was FED's i(incorrect) interp about 15 years ago. Thankfully, they corrected it within a year or two after issuing it.

[thumpferee]

Thank you all for the relevant info!

Follow up question...

In the rule posted by Freddy, doesn't the wording seem confusing regarding the AP arrow being changed?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

Thank you all for the relevant info!

Follow up question...

In the rule posted by Freddy, doesn't the wording seem confusing regarding the AP arrow being changed?

I don't think so -- but you are not the only one to ask the quesiton, so it might be.

[Zoochy]

ART. 2

The throw-in begins when the ball is at the disposal of a player of the team entitled to the throw-in. The thrower shall release the ball on a pass directly into the court, except as in 7-5-7, within five seconds after the throw-in begins. The throw-in pass shall touch another player (inbounds or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched. The throw-in pass shall not touch a teammate while it is on the out-of-bounds side of the throw-in boundary plane.
Sorry, no case play

[deecee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I don't think so -- but you are not the only one to ask the quesiton, so it might be.

I agree, I don't see anything confusing. They are making it clear that the AP throw in ended and to switch the arrow.

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by deecee

I agree, I don't see anything confusing. They are making it clear that the AP throw in ended and to switch the arrow.

After re-reading it I agree. Just seemed like it could’ve been written a little better. I may be dyslexic.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That was FED's i(incorrect) interp about 15 years ago. Thankfully, they corrected it within a year or two after issuing it.

An ancient interpretation that this was a throwin violation because the inbounder did not pass the ball directly to a player on the court. This interpretation is now as dead as an Egyptian mummy. No need to call Lara Croft.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That was FED's i(incorrect) interp about 15 years ago. Thankfully, they corrected it within a year or two after issuing it.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

An ancient interpretation that this was a throwin violation because the inbounder did not pass the ball directly to a player on the court. This interpretation is now as dead as an Egyptian mummy. No need to call Lara Croft.

Actually, the current Rule is the Ancient Rule. The "Ancient Rule" to which Billy refers was the Rule between the Rule as it is now which was also the Ancient Rule before the "Ancient Rule".

MTD, Sr.