1) That case is specifically outlined in the rules. It is also not a throw-in <i>per se</i>. The ball was never released by the thrower. That's why it's a held ball.

2) That's irrelevant. The player standing OOB that <b>first</b> touched the throw-in committed a violation as per rule 9-2-10. The listed penalty for that violation is a throw-in to the opponents at the <b>original throw-in spot</b>.

Oops, you're right! But the ball does have inbound status at that time, I would think.

No disrespect either, but Mr. Webb's ruling goes completely contrary to what is written in the rulebook. Until Mr. Webb can get the rulebook changed to fit his interpretation, I think that I'll go with the rule book states <b>now</b>. Iow, Mr. Webb's interpretation at this time is no more credible than that of any other poster on this forum, no matter what his qualifications. He's just another person giving his personal opinion-- and his personal opinion doesn't mean that it's automatically correct. That holds true for all of us posting here.

Btw, please note that Mr. Webb did not consider rule 9-2-10 as one of the references he gave to support his interpretation.

Maybe by virtue of geography; but legally it's still a during a throwin. By rule, it's only status is "throwin."

That is because the rule book contradicts itself. Either position is contrary to the rulebook.

You have made your case clearly. It is not the interpretation of this exact play that I have been given. I have been instructed that the violation is for causing the ball to go OOB (9-3-1) and the correct throw-in spot is that nearest the violation. (9-3-1 penalty).

You have confused the fact that everyone is equal in their right to have an opinion with the myth that all opinions are equal. They are not.

What's that got to do with anything?:confused: The violation I referenced in 9-2-10 is for being OOB when the player touched or was touched by the throw-in.

You're right, I misundersood your point.

When there is a definitive ruling in the rule book, then any opinion going against that ruling is an incorrect opinion imo. Note that I'm not giving my own feeling as to what the correct call might turn out to be. I'm going by the strict wording of the rule book <b>now</b>. And Mr. Webb admits himself that the strict wording of the rule book has to be clarified to fit his <b>opinion</b>.

By definition(4-42-5), a throw-in ends when the when the throw-in pass touches someone who is either in or out of bounds. The throw-in act ended by touching someone who was OOB, which is a violation of rule 9-2-10. How can it be anything other than a <b>throw-in</b> violation?

Iow, R9-3 is simply an irrelevant rules reference imo.

Now I know why the rule book is so hard to understand. This guy really writes the way the rule book is written. :eek:

JR cites 9-2-10 to say this is a throw-in violation. But other rules just as clearly state otherwise.

7-6-1 requires: The throw-in pass shall touch another player (inbounds or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched.

That is exactly what happened. The throw-in was made to another player and was touched -- out of bounds -- which is exactly what this rule allows. This makes it a legal throw-in; not a throw-in violation. Since the throw-in was legal, we need to look elsewhere for a violation. That elsewhere is 9-3-1, (causing the ball to go OOB).

Also, we need to look at how this change occurred. It was "snuck in" without notice in 2004-05. And I am told (and have shared with this group) by a member of the Rules Committee, that this was not the intent of the change. If the Fed actually wanted to change the rule for this violation and bring the ball back to the original throw-in spot, I suggest that it would have included this as a "major editorial change."

As much as I enjoy this exercise, my bottom line is that the rule is not nearly as clear as JR suggests. Given that, I have to follow the interpretation from my rules experts.

And what does rule 9-2-2 state?

Lemme help you out--"The ball shall be passed by the thrower directly into the court from out-of-bounds so <font color = red>it touches or is touched by another player(in bounds or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched</font>".

And does 7-6-1 specify a throw-in spot for that violation?

But...... where does the penalty for 9-2-2 state that the subsequent throw-in after the violation shall go?

All together now.......:D

Good grief, rule 9-2-10 is perfectly clear. “No player shall be out of bounds when he/she touches or is touched by the ball after it has been released on a throw-in pass.” How much clearer can it be? Maybe the Fed meant this to only apply to members of the thrower’s team; but we don’t know this. Until they clarify otherwise (I would even take a case play) I have to apply this as written. Original spot, as it’s a throwin violation on the defense.
As such, if it happens during an AP throwin; the arrow stays put.