BktBallRef was right!! (Sorry, Nevada)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So, is B1 still a defender after the throw-in pass is deflected? My original stance was that either team could secure control after a deflection and come down anywhere. The new case tells us that this is not true for team A. Now we know for certain that the throw-in exception does not apply. Does the
"defensive player" exception apply? If I understand correctly, Tony says it does and JR says it does not. Now what do we do?

The problems remains that you do not understand it correctly. The new case tells you that it's illegal for both teams. Tony is not saying that B1 is a defensive player with regards to the exception. Tony was and has been saying that the throw-in ended with the tipped ball, and the exception in 9-9-3 also ended when the throw-in ended. Therefore, when the throw-in ended, you had a loose ball without player or team control having been established. The first player to gain player control of the loose ball will now become an offensive player, and the exception does not count for offensive players. You and Nevada were arguing differently- from last November to the present. The new case play asserts that Tony was correct.

From the new case play--"The exception granted during a throw-in ends when the throw-in ends and is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball." That's all you have to know.

Tony and I were arguing whether there is an "offense" or "defense" per se during a throw-in.

What Tony and I(and others) were arguing was nothing but semantics, and those semantics are basically completely irrelevant to the correct call on the play being discussed.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

What Tony and I(and others) were arguing was nothing but semantics, and those semantics are basically completely irrelevant to the correct call on the play being discussed.

Oooohhh...cool. I'm arguing semantics...

pssst...M&M...what's a semantic??

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

pssst...M&M...what's a semantic??

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

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

pssst...M&M...what's a semantic??

(I always thought it was a company that makes anti-virus software, but damn if I know how it applies to backcourt violations...)

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

(I always thought it was a company that makes anti-virus software, but damn if I know how it applies to backcourt violations...)

Semantics is the theory of meanings.

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

P.S. Why are you guys whispering?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Semantics is the theory of meanings.

I thought it was the meaning of theories.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Semantics is the theory of meanings.

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

P.S. Why are you guys whispering?

(To keep OS from hearing us)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Semantics is the theory of meanings.

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

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

Oh, great, now Padgett will post images.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Oh, great, now Padgett will post images.

Sure, with that kind of encouragement.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Oh, great, now Padgett will post images.

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

Gotta go now. Gotta expunge some bodily fluid.

I know - TMI. Sorry.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

Beer?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Beer?

Beer is a temporary male bodily fluid.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Semantics is the theory of meanings.

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

P.S. Why are you guys whispering?

Anti-semantic is the theory of being mean.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Tony and I were arguing whether there is an "offense" or "defense" per se during a throw-in.

What Tony and I(and others) were arguing was nothing but semantics, and those semantics are basically completely irrelevant to the correct call on the play being discussed.

So if it was not pertaining to the defensive player exception in 9-9-3, what was the significance of whether there is a defense on the throw-in or not?