Writing notes in the margins to the cute girl sitting next to you doesn't count.

That's simply because I'm trying to make some sense of what you're saying.

Let's leave it at this:

7-6-1 CLEARLY states any player of either team can touch the ball anywhere on a legal throw-in.

9-2-2 CLEARLY says the same thing (the ball shall be passed to a player of either team in bounds or out of bounds...)

9-2-10 EXACTLY contradicts these 2 rules.

They f'ed it up.

You feel obligated to twist yourself into a pretzel to rationalize their f up..."pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

I'm tired of trying to untwist you in your misguided efforts.

They f'ed it up. You insist on sweeping their mess under the rug. Fine. Enjoy yourself.

I don't want to leave to get popcorn. Will someone share theirs? I don't want any salt...

Lost your temper, didn't ya?

http://www.sodamnfunny.com/Animation/Gif/ANI26.gif

Scappy wins!:D

I guess this is where we disagree. I don't think 7-6-1 is saying that it's legal for B1 to catch the throw-in while standing out of bounds. I think it's saying that the inbounder can't throw the ball out of bounds untouched. That's all.

7-6-1 does not say what you think it's saying.

It doesn't say that at all. You are implying that it is legal for a player to touch the ball anywhere IB or OOB during a throw-in

You guys are reading way too much into this.

7.6.1 - Only describes what makes a legal throw-in, it does not address the issue of what to do if a player who touches it is OOB.

9.2.2 - says the same thing.

9.2.10 - Is the only place where we have a violation. The actions of the thrower were legal as described in 7.6.1 and 9.2.2.

The only place anything is described clearly is 9.2.10:
"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."

And it tells you specifically what to do about it.
Ball to opponents for a throw-in at the original throw-in spot.

7.6.1 & 9.2.2 tell you what can happen. 9.2.10 tells you what to do if it does happen, not the other way around.

As a professional logician, I'm afraid I don't see the contradiction. Suppose the throw-in is first touched by a player OOB. That meets the test of 7.6.1, but fails the test of 9.2.10.

Just because it's not a violation of one rule does not entail that it's not a violation of another. In my example, the throw-in does not violate the rule requiring the throw-in to be touched by a player before going OOB, but it does violate the rule that prohibits the throw-in first being touched OOB.

FWIW, I disagree with PYRef: this is not a modal claim, but rather two distinct violations that happen to have the same penalty.

Can anyone provide an example that both is and is not a violation of one and the same provision of the rules?

That's what I said. It is not a violation by the thrower under 7.6.1. It is a violation by the toucher OOB under 9.2.10.
Rule 7.6.1 does not make it legal for the player to catch it OOB it only describes the throw-in administration.

No one said otherwise. What's your point?

I fail to see two distinct violations. Legal play by the thrower, illegal play by the receiver OOB.

It's not that complicated.

1. At least one poster maintains that the rules contradict each other. Read the thread before you try to correct me.

2. I did not misspell 'modal'. Look it up.

It was at about this point that the previous thread disintegrated. I think just about all that can be said (at least until FED clears this up, although one side will clain that no cleaning up is needed) has been said.

Disclaimer: Any grammatical or spelling errors in this post have been placed there intentionally to give the various Mr., Mrs. and Ms. AGGs and ASGs something to do.