Ball lodged.

[Rita C]

I missed one question on the test that I can't find the ruling for in the rulebook or the casebook.

It is an alternating possession throw-in when A1's throw-in lodges between the backboard and the ring.

I said "True" since it is a live ball being lodged. But then I realized after my test was graded that the throw-in hadn't been completed either.

So I'm thinking, in the unlikely event this should happen, team A gets the ball for throw-in again since they hadn't violated?

Rita

[Adam]

Actually, it's a throwin violation because the throwin team fails to throw the ball so that it is legally touched by someone on the playing court.

[Scratch85]

9-2-8. It is a violation if the thrown ball lodges between the backboard and ring or comes to rest on the flange before it touches or is touched by another player.

The ball is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in at the original throw-in spot.

[AKOFL]

And they lose the arrow due to the violation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

And they lose the arrow due to the violation.

I prefer to see it as the arrow having done its job; provided the throwin. What they do with the throwin is irrelevant, as long as it gets completed legally.

[AKOFL]

[QUOTE=Snaqwells;637379]I prefer to see it as the arrow having done its job; provided the throwin. What they do with the throwin is irrelevant, as long as it gets completed legally.[/QUOTE
Not sure what you are getting at. Are you trying to say the same thing only different?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

Not sure what you are getting at. Are you trying to say the same thing only different?

Yes and no. My opinion and philosophy on the arrow differs from the rules (although I enforce it correctly by the rules). I don't see this as a case of the throwin team "losing" the arrow due to the violation. I see it as the team having utilized the arrow and not taken advantage of it.

[AKOFL]

So the glass isn't half full or half empty. What is it?

[AKOFL]

I get what you are saying. As long as it works for you.

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by Rita C

I missed one question on the test that I can't find the ruling for in the rulebook or the casebook.

It is an alternating possession throw-in when A1's throw-in lodges between the backboard and the ring.

I said "True" since it is a live ball being lodged. But then I realized after my test was graded that the throw-in hadn't been completed either.

So I'm thinking, in the unlikely event this should happen, team A gets the ball for throw-in again since they hadn't violated?

Rita

I'm confused. Is the question saying, "A has an AP throw-in and throws up a wedgie so what's the next play?" Or is it saying, "A has a regular throw-in and throws up a wedgie, and the next play is an AP?"

[AKOFL]

Now you've confused me Juulie

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

I'm confused. Is the question saying, "A has an AP throw-in and throws up a wedgie so what's the next play?" Or is it saying, "A has a regular throw-in and throws up a wedgie, and the next play is an AP?"

Juulie - I think the question, as stated, is asking if a wedgie on a regular throw-in results in an AP throw-in just as a wedgie during play (not on a throw-in) results in an AP throw-in. The answer to that, of course, is no.

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Juulie - I think the question, as stated, is asking if a wedgie on a regular throw-in results in an AP throw-in just as a wedgie during play (not on a throw-in) results in an AP throw-in. The answer to that, of course, is no.

That's what I thought when I read the OP, but after reading some of the responses I was confused about either the question itself or about the answers.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

A wedgie.

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

A wedgie... A wedgie.

Mark Padgett: I can't believe that you've got nothing else to say? Are you feeling alright?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yes and no. My opinion and philosophy on the arrow differs from the rules (although I enforce it correctly by the rules). I don't see this as a case of the throwin team "losing" the arrow due to the violation. I see it as the team having utilized the arrow and not taken advantage of it.

My feeling exactly. Nobody took the arrow from them. They were not robbed. They were entitled to an AP throw-in, and they received an AP throw-in. What they did with it, is their problem.