reffish,
Your different sitch would be Team A ball for throw-in.
mick

Although there is no clarification for 9-3, 7.2.1 Situation works close enough for me.

[/B][/QUOTE]How is 7.2.1 relevant? In that play, B1 bats the <b>ball</b>, not the <b>hand(s)</b>. Different situation entirely.

Old Dude Ref,
Welcome to the forum.

With the ball released [<I>off the hand</I>], any further follow through of the hand becomes nothing more than *hand jive*, body English and cannot possibly affect the rotation, or flight, of the ball with anything except the increased air circulation of the follow-through, ...assuming there is no magic wand in that particular grip. :)

mick

How could a shot possibly be disrupted by contact that occurred </b>after</b> the shot left the shooter's hands? That's physically impossible. After the shot is gone, you would have to touch the ball to disrupt it's flight. Any contact by the defender that occurs after the shot is gone should be ignored as being incidental unless it happens to place the shooter at some kinda disadvantage or it's rough play. Jmo.

How is 7.2.1 relevant? In that play, B1 bats the <b>ball</b>, not the <b>hand(s)</b>. Different situation entirely.

[/B][/QUOTE]

<LI>"Sorry if I kicked another one, Coach.
But, I woulda sworn he hit the ball, ...again."
:)
mick

<LI>"Sorry if I kicked another one, Coach.
But, I woulda sworn he hit the ball, ...again."
:)
mick [/B][/QUOTE]The best unanswered question yet is still:

How many would call this play by the letter of the rule and give B1 the ball? And how many would give A1 the ball because of B1's contact with their hands forcing the ball to go OOB?

Note that I haven't said either way yet what I'd do. :D

The best unanswered question yet is still:

How many would call this play by the letter of the rule and give B1 the ball? And how many would give A1 the ball because of B1's contact with their hands forcing the ball to go OOB?

Note that I haven't said either way yet what I'd do. :D [/B][/QUOTE]

A's ball, B's fingers made last contact on the ball between A's spread fingers.;)

An important stipulation, considering that the new Harry Potter book is being released tonight at midnight. And yes, I have the responsibility of taking my daughter and her friend to the party at our local bookstore. :shrug:

Here's a thought....

If the hand is part of the ball, and B1 slaps A1's hand while on the ball, causing the ball to go out of bounds....

Would it not be A's ball - because if B1 touched A1's hand while it was on the ball, it was the same as touching the ball (because the rule says the hand is part of the ball), therefore, technically, B1 was last to touch the ball - so the ball should go to Team A.

Oh, and one more thing....who's on first? :confused:

So, where are the friend's parents? Are they going to be safe at home relaxing with that bottle of wine, while you're fighting the crowds at the bookstore late at night? Why aren't THEY taking both kids? Isn't it their turn? Where's your indignation, Chuck?


Yea, I've gotta take my kids too. :rolleyes:

Nope, the rule <b>doesn't</b> say the hand is part of the ball. The rule (R10-6-1) sez "He/she shall not contact an opponent with his/her hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt to play the ball". Iow, if you judge the whack on the hand "incidental contact", then it ain't a foul.

The other relevant rule is R7-2-1, which sez "The ball is caused to go out of bounds by the last player in bounds to touch it, or be touched by it...".

Put 'em together, and the only possible calls, by strict interpretation of the rules (I think) is:
1) Judge the contact on A1's hand by B1 as a foul on B1.
2) Judge the contact on A1's hand by B1 as incidental contact, which means no foul---> but A1 was now the last player to touch the ball in bounds---> so you end up with a B throw-in.

Anybody disagree with that from a strict rules standpoint?

PS- Personally, I'm in favor of giving the ball back to A for a throw-in. I think that this was the original purpose and intent of the rules. B shouldn't benefit or gain an advantage after initiating the physical contact in this case imo.

Nah, no indignation. They're both great girls. We'd already made plans to have her sleep over our house tonight. The Potter Party will just be a bonus -- for them.

Gotta love being a dad, huh? LOL Enjoy your pumpkin juice and chocolate frogs! :D

Have you ever tried those Bertie Botts all flavor beans (or whatever they're called). The ones that have the different flavors like buttered popcorn and cherry, as well as grass, ear wax and vomit. I don't know how they do it, but the flavors are all accurate.

So, anyway, what's this have to do with hands and balls?

GASP!!!

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dice-man/sanford.jpg

You mean there are times you would make a call that is literally opposite what the rule actually states?!? How could you?!?

(BTW - I agree with you.) I know, I know, you're already typing, "But I would do the same for both teams." I just couldn't resist.

As for the contact with the shooter's hand after the shot is released, I've got nothing. Fred Flintstone is the only person I've ever seen effect the path of a ball once it's released using further body motion. :D

As for B1 hittings A1's hand and causing the ball to go OOB, I have to agree with JR that by strict interpretation it would have to be B's ball. But I take the position that the rules committee didn't intend to give B1 free shots at A1's hand, but rather to simplify what would otherwise be a very hair-splitting judgement call by absolving B1 of responsibility for the contact on the hand as long as he is attempting to play the ball. In that case, I think we should proceed as if he did play the ball and give it back to A. The rule may not say that the hand is part of the ball, but I think that's closer to the committee's intent than the strict interpretation.

[Edited by Back In The Saddle on Jul 15th, 2005 at 09:10 PM]