As some of us have said Fed 7-6-1 states just as clearly "The throw-in pass shall touch another player (inbounds or out of bounds) before going out of bounds untouched..."

I understand that, but I don't understand why that is relevant to our conversation. The person making the throw-in has not violated, because he/she has met the conditions of 7-6-1. That's not even an issue.

But the person who catches the throw-in while out of bounds HAS committed a violation per 9-2-10 (NOT per 7-2-1, since the ball was never inbounds). The penalty for that infraction is a throw-in from the previous throw-in spot.

If someone thinks that the PENALTY section for 9-2 is mis-printed, fine. But there's no possible way to dispute the infraction that has occured, in my mind. 7-6-1 doesn't apply to our situation. 7-2-1 doesn't apply to our situation. The only infraction that has occured is 9-2-10. That's JMO, of course. But I think those of you on the other side are stretching things way too thin.

errrr....wha?

Even though 7-6-1 says in black & white that the throw-in is legal if any player touches the ball anywhere after the throw-in you think it only applies to the person actually throwing the ball in? And that somehow 9-2-10 is the real rule we need to consult to understand the big picture?

You think that? Really?? You really think 7-6 relates solely to the guy throwing the ball in? Even though sprinkled liberally thoughout 7-6 are references to other players on both teams?

I think they f'ed it up and have 2 rules that clearly say 2 very different things. Period. And no one's opinion is valid on which rule to follow until they get it un-f'ed up and publish a change.

I would say 2-3 applies but it doesn't. They need to revise 2-3 to include the case where they f'ed it up and anyone's guess is as good as the next guy's.

You are truly wise beyond your years.

He's also wrong, but that's another article for Juulie to write.

Well, that shouldn't bother ol' Scrappy one bit. Nobody will read that article anyway.

yeahbut I can't wait for it to come out on DVD!

Here's what I know. And it's really all I know, pertaining to this play. Not what I think. This is what I know:

The throw-in pass shall touch another player (inbounds or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched. That happened. So the inbounder did not violate. That much I know. (I don't know about anybody else mentioned in 7-6-1 yet.)

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. But someone WAS out of bounds when he/she touched the throw-in pass. So that someone violated. That much I know. (I don't know if it was the inbounder's teammate or opponent; but that also doesn't matter.)

The penalty for the violation that I know occured is a designated spot throw-in at the spot of the previous throw-in. That much I know.

OK. Let me play this back so we all understand what you are saying.

It doesn't matter if the player who was OOB when he was first to touch the throw-in was a team mate or an opponent. It's just a throw-in violation by rule. And we all know on a violation the *other* team gets the ball. So if B1 touches the ball OOB on a throw-in by A1 team B gets the ball at the original spot.

That's your claim?

Care to defend how an opponent can cause the other team to violate the throw-in? And then cause the player who violated to gain control for *his* team?

The rule doesn’t specify which team can’t do it. When B1 touches the ball with his foot on the line during the throwin, by this rule, he has committed a defensive throw-in violation. The rule that is violated is 9-2-10.
No one is claiming it’s a violation by the thrower; it’s not. It’s a violation, by the receiver, of rule 9-2-10. Therefore, A gets a new throwin, at the original spot (based on rule 9-2-10.) Rule 7-6 hasn’t been violated, so the penalties there aren’t applicable.

Dan -

Not to speak for others, but

1. They're not causing the throwing team to violate - B is violating the throw-in provisions by doing this, and
2. The other part of this is defendable because of the following exerpt from the Rule Book:

9-2 - ...(throw-ins must meet all of these requirements and people can't do all of these things)...
PENALTY: (Section 2) The ball becomes dead when the violation or technical foul occurs. Following a violation, the ball is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in at the original throw-in spot.

9-2-10 is what we're discussing. The penalty, as Rule 9 is organized and worded, applies to all of section 2.

I don't personally care for it, and I think it's a mistake to have this as a violation of the throw-in by A, when 4-42-5 includes the words "inbounds or out of bounds," and then 9-2-10 is (possibly purposefully) ambiguous in not designating what team the "player" is on that is causing this to be a violation - but in any event, that's how it's defendable.

You're going to have to play it back again, so that I understand wtf you are saying. What you've written in that post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. :confused:

Um, no. I claim to have written all of Shakespeare's sonnets. But that's not really relevant to this thread.

If B1 catches A1's throw-in while B1 is out of bounds, then B1 has committed a violation of 9-2-10 and Team A gets another throw-in from the original throw-in spot. That's my claim. And that's what I've been saying all day.

Um, no. But since I never claimed that, I don't feel compelled to defend it.

What did I miss??

(I haven't quite got the hang of this auto-post thing yet)

It's newsworthy when the Scrapman is wrong?

Ooh, good one! :D