I can think of a coupla answers, but none of 'em would last.:D

Semantics. :D

There really isn't any significance. It's irrelevant to 9-9-3. That rule says that the exception <b>during</b> a throw-in applies to <b>every</b> player on the floor. The case play just further tells us that the exception ended when the throw-in ended, and only applies to the first player touching the ball on the throw-in anyway.

Make sense now?

I hate to say this, but I actually think that the rule you quoted argues against your position. If the opponent of the inbounder is considered a defender by the rules, then why is "a player from the team not in control" described as a defensive player or a player during a jump ball or a player during a throw-in? If an opponent of the inbounder were a defender, you wouldn't need both "defensive player" and "during a throw-in" in the description.

You'd still need "during a throw-in" to allow for the "offensive" team to have the exception.

Semantics is the theory of meanings.

What's most unfortunate here is that some of you seem anti-semantic. :D

P.S. Why are you guys whispering?

I thought it was the meaning of theories. :confused:

Oh? I thought it had sumthin' to do with male bodily fluids.

Anti-semantic is the theory of being mean.

Oh, great, now Padgett will post images. :eek:

Sure, with that kind of encouragement.

Nah - too easy. BTW - next time someone at the grocery store, bank or restaurant tritely asks you how you are today, reply "misanthropic". :p

Gotta go now. Gotta expunge some bodily fluid.

I know - TMI. Sorry.

Hmm, have we met? Seems you already know me. :p

Oh, and stop telling me what to do.