Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Why do you presume that what's said re: the termination of the throw-in should be acted on first when 2 things happen at once? If you take the kick as coming first, that's it, the ball's dead, and the touch to end the throw-in never happened. Are you suggesting there's something in the rules that tells you to act on the termination of throw-in first?
|
I'm not presuming anything. When the ball is touched, the throw-in ends. You're saying that the ball can be kicked without being touched. Sorry Jeff but that's stupid. It's too stupid to even argue. I'm done.
|
I'm not saying the ball can be kicked without being touched. I'm saying that, if you have two events occur simultaneously, you can resolve the situation, in the absence of a rule for doing so, this by concluding that:
1) Event A occurred before event B; Kick before touch - ball is dead, touch didn't happen.
2) B occurred before A (Touch before kick, throw-in ended, arrow to Team B, ball back to Team A for a spot throw-in)
Precedent for concluding that one event occurred before another as a way of resolving an apparently simultaneous situation exists in the recently addressed matter of catching the tap.
Stupid? Nice talk.
|
Please explain how you can have a kick without a touch.
tia.
|
"Please explain how you can have a kick without a touch.
tia."
Hopefully you're not being sarcastic.
How can you have a kick without a touch? The same way attempting to measure an electrons momentum knocks it out of its original position and finding its position changes its momentum? But we're not concerned with the - what does Jurassic call them? - the Laws of Physics. When he's capitalizing, you know he's jellin'.
|
Quote:
I would call this the same way you would, I believe . . . I am just pointing out that, while some 'situations' where two or perhaps more rules apply 'simultaneously' have been adjudicated, this one has not. You are interpreting it, as far as I can see, as though it had been interpreted by 'them', given the larger (backward-chaining, hehe) rules of the game. Fine.
|
Follow this chain - a kick requires a touch. An AP throw-in ends on any touch under both nfhs & ncaa rules. End of the chain: the kick is irrelevant in this case.
|
I'm trying to stay away from the disagreement on kick first vs. touch first and get back to the original play.
Your statement "An AP throw-in ends on any touch under both nfhs & ncaa rules." OK, I'll accept that. But explain this part of the NCAA rule...6.3.2 "An alternating possession throw-in shall end when the throw-in touches or is LEGALLY touched by an inbounds player other than the thrower-in..." (emphasis mine)
Why does the rule say touches or is legally touched? Why add legally touched if the throw-in ends on any touch? If the throw-in ends on any touch (legal or illegal), why add the part about a legal touch?
Sat Oct 08, 2005, 06:22pm
Threaded Mode
