Throw-In BC Violation

[Adam]

Originally Posted by shishstripes

I am trying to understand the situation where A1 is the thrower during a spot throw-in near the division line. B1 touches the ball and A2 jumps from FC, catches the ball, and lands in BC. BC violation. But if B1 does not touch it, A2 is fine.

When B1 touches the ball throw-in ends so A2's location is FC where he took off last. However if B1 does not touch, throw-in ends when A2 catches it (in the air) and location is not established until A2 lands?

You seem to understand it. I'm not a fan of it, but I understand it.

[dbking]

It may be cold in Ak but you have the rule correct. It is a coach ballistic rule. I have never seen it happen, good thing!

[shishstripes]

Thank you for confirming for me. It is a balmy -8 here on the NW coast but a chilly -44 in Fairbanks.

[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!

[jevaque]

But wouldn't team control have to be established first in the front court for it to be a violation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jevaque

But wouldn't team control have to be established first in the front court for it to be a violation.

This accomplished once A2 catches the ball since A2 had FC status.

[jevaque]

I understand that, but team control isn't established when the ball is tipped by B2, so when A2 catches the ball in the air thats when team control is established so landing in the BC should be fine since team A never had team control in the FC because he caught it in the air before team control was estab.

[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

[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, ...

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by shishstripes

Thank you for confirming for me. It is a balmy -8 here on the NW coast but a chilly -44 in Fairbanks.

-8?? That's a whole half-a-degree warmer than my hometown of Soldotna is right now!!

[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.

[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...."

[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