Rule Relapse - Please Help

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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..."

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

You are truly wise beyond your years.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You are truly wise beyond your years.

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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!

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

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?

You think that? Really??

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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?

[Adam]

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.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Care to defend how an opponent can cause the other team to violate the throw-in?

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

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

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.

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?

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.

Care to defend how an opponent can cause the other team to violate the throw-in?

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

[rainmaker]

What did I miss??

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

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

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

It's newsworthy when the Scrapman is wrong?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

It's newsworthy when the Scrapman is wrong?

Ooh, good one!