Q#34 Resumption of Play

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by KSRef07

Logic seems to point this way. Other wise it would simply be another delay of game infraction (one violation, then a T) and would be listed under there. A team would never get a second violation, which they do.

But where I am struggling is to find how 7.5.1.C could even happen if there is no carryover to another situation. It could only happen if we ignore the word "MAKE" in the sentence "Following a violation by one team only, if that team continues to delay when authorized to MAKE a throw in...". Under this section how is is possible for team A to violate, Team B NOT violate (because that would be subsection D), and team A get another throw in in the same situation?

I see your point. I think it's just a bad wording again.

My personal opinion is that the entire rule book should be completely re-written. But I'm not volunteering.