Throw-in violation or OOB violation?

[RushmoreRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Exactly. Also; restrictions on the thrower end with the release; except for the fact that the thrower cannot be first to touch the ball after she releases the pass onto the court.

I agree with the throw-in violations but came about it in a different manner...I guess you'll tell me if this wasn't logical.

I asked myself if the clock would have ever started...If the answer is no then you have to go back to original inbound spot because you never had a legal throw-in. If the answer is yes then you felt that the throw in was "legal" and that the ball went OOB where A2 recieved it. My logic, however warped you think it may seem gave me only one conclusion, throw-in violation.

I know that might seem like a different way to conclude the ruling, but I think it makes sense, doesn't it?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RushmoreRef

I agree with the throw-in violations but came about it in a different manner...I guess you'll tell me if this wasn't logical.

I asked myself if the clock would have ever started...If the answer is no then you have to go back to original inbound spot because you never had a legal throw-in. If the answer is yes then you felt that the throw in was "legal" and that the ball went OOB where A2 recieved it. My logic, however warped you think it may seem gave me only one conclusion, throw-in violation.

I know that might seem like a different way to conclude the ruling, but I think it makes sense, doesn't it?

I think it works for this scenario, but it wouldn't work for all.
Example: A1 throws the ball towards A2 on a spot throwin. A2's first touch is an intentional kick (for whatever reason). The clock never starts here, but the violation puts the ball nearest A2's kick, not at the original spot.

[RushmoreRef]

I agree and was only using it toward this situation....just stating that, in this case, the question can be answered with relative ease by just using common sense judgement...If that makes any sense.