Out of Bounds?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Further, the case play 7.6.4F is definitive.

7.6.4 Situation F: Thrower A1 inadvertently holds the ball through the end-line plane during a throw-in. B1 is able to get his/her hands on the ball and A cannot pull it back. Ruling: There is no player or team control during a throw in, therefore a held ball is called, resulting in an alternating-possession throw-in. If the original throw-in is an alternating-possession throw-in, Team A still has the arrow following the held ball.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

7.6.4 Situation F: Thrower A1 inadvertently holds the ball through the end-line plane during a throw-in. B1 is able to get his/her hands on the ball and A cannot pull it back. Ruling: There is no player or team control during a throw in, therefore a held ball is called, resulting in an alternating-possession throw-in. If the original throw-in is an alternating-possession throw-in, Team A still has the arrow following the held ball.

I still can't believe they included this portion as the reasoning. It's completely stupid.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I still can't believe they included this portion as the reasoning. It's completely stupid.

I noticed that also. Why is this part of the reasoning for the call?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I noticed that also. Why is this part of the reasoning for the call?

I don't know, but including it could lead some newer officials to infer that a player can't be called for OOB unless there is player or team control established. While this is definitively not true, the case play could lead to that conclusion.