Throw-In BC Violation

[AKOFL]

The acception rule only applies to the first one to touch, offence or defence. Once the ball is touched the provision no longer applies.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

Another twist. If a1, while in the air from the front court, catches and then passes to a2 in the backcourt this also is a violation. So much to think about!

Any case play on this?

[jevaque]

thanks

[CMHCoachNRef]

This exception to the exception (ball tipped by B2 negates the normal exception permitted A2) is one of these situations that I understand completely, but with which I disagree completely as well.

Such over and back violations cause angst every time we call them. This is right up there with the last-touch-first-touch over and back violation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

This exception to the exception (ball tipped by B2 negates the normal exception permitted A2) is one of these situations that I understand completely, but with which I disagree completely as well.

Such over and back violations cause angst every time we call them. This is right up there with the last-touch-first-touch over and back violation.

I'm okay with the last-touch-first-touch thing. I do think, however, that they should expand the exception to all situations where there is no team control. The rule would be shorter, too. "A player whose team is not in control...."

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

This exception to the exception (ball tipped by B2 negates the normal exception permitted A2) is one of these situations that I understand completely, but with which I disagree completely as well.

I understand it, and maybe I'm one of the few people that doesn't disagree with it. Look at it this way, it's not an "exception to the exception", but rather look at it exactly as it is written - it is an exception allowed during a throw-in. When does a throw-in end? 4-42-5 tells us that - when it touches or is touched by another player either in-bounds or out of bounds. So, when the throw-in is touched by B1, the throw-in is over, thus there's no exception to worry about.

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Such over and back violations cause angst every time we call them. This is right up there with the last-touch-first-touch over and back violation.

Most of the angst comes from not knowing or completely understanding the rule. The more we can pass along proper information, the less angst for all of us.

(I believe I have now hit a persoanl best for the most number of times using the word "angst" in a single post.)

[w_sohl]

Think of it this way...

You are where you last were till your not there anymore.

Player started in FC, jumped in the air with momentum towards BC. While in the air the last place the player was on the ground was in the FC so he/she does not get BC status till they land and touch the division line or futher back.

[AKOFL]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm okay with the last-touch-first-touch thing. I do think, however, that they should expand the exception to all situations where there is no team control. The rule would be shorter, too. "A player whose team is not in control...."

That is exactly how the rule reads. Are you trying to confuse me? lol

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

That is exactly how the rule reads. Are you trying to confuse me? lol

My way would remove the parethetical specifics that follow.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

My way would remove the parethetical specifics that follow.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Nah, I'm saving that for the AP arrow changes I want.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jdmara

Any case play on this?

None needed.

The exception part of the rule (I think it's article 3) says (paraphrasing) "A PLAYER ...may catch the ball and land in the BC". There's nothing about passing the ball, or the restrictions not applying until someone touching the court controls the ball, ...