Acceptable?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

Yes, refgatormaz left out the intermission part, but he wanted to clarify that just any normal throw-in (i.e., resulting from a violation) does NOT use this resumption of play procedure.

And both you and him are incorrect.

2007-08 Rule Changes
4-38; 7-5-1 Clarified when the resumption-of-play procedure is in effect.

2-9-3
If the throw-in team does not make a player available, the official shall place the ball on the floor. The official shall hand or bounce the ball to the thrower for a throw-in unless the throw-in is from outside an end line following a successful goal.

4-38

The resumption-of-play procedure is used to prevent delay in putting the ball in play when a throw-in team does not make a thrower available or following a timeout or intermission (unless either team is not on the court to start the second half) as in 7-5-1 and 8-1-2. The procedure results in a violation instead of a technical foul for initial delay in specific situations.

7.5.2 SITUATION A: Following a violation, the throw-in spot has been properly designated and the covering official has waited a reasonable amount of time for Team A to provide a thrower. What does the official do now?
RULING: The official shall place the ball on the floor at the spot and begin the five-second throw-in count. Team A thrower must release the ball on a throw-in or request time-out before the five-second count is reached. (2-9-3)

[SmokeEater]

I guess that pretty much clears it up!

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

I guess that pretty much clears it up!

That's why most of us are here.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

And both you and him are incorrect.

I was only clarifying what he was trying to say. I didn't say I agreed with him, so I'm not incorrect. I'm not being an ***, but there is a difference between clarifying something for someone with neutrality and quoting someone with incorrectness. Big difference in a classroom discussion, similar to this board discussion.

[TravelinMan]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

I was only clarifying what he was trying to say. I didn't say I agreed with him, so I'm not incorrect. I'm not being an ***, but there is a difference between clarifying something for someone with neutrality and quoting someone with incorrectness. Big difference in a classroom discussion, similar to this board discussion.

Please let us know beforehand when you are clarifying what someone else is saying (this can annoy the "someone else" no end), so we can ignore what you have to say.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

And both you and him are incorrect.

2007-08 Rule Changes
4-38; 7-5-1 Clarified when the resumption-of-play procedure is in effect.

I see that someone learned something recently.

http://www.nfhs.org/cgi-bin/ultimate...;f=11;t=002056


PS I believe that "you and he are" would be proper grammar.