I almost always agree with Bob. This time I'll agree with tjones.

A throw-in would not have followed, had the ball not become lodged.

Who are you? What have you done with the real Bob?

This all reads very clear to me, so I'm not sure where the confusion comes from.

NFHS 6-4-3d: ... An alternating-possession throw-in shall result when: A live ball lodges between the backboard and ring or comes to rest on the flange, unless a free throw or throw-in follows.

This is pretty straight-forward, especially if you think about it in terms of how you will resume play. It is even clearer if we come at it back to front. When a live ball "wedgies" and we already know play will resume with a free throw (e.g., the first of two free throws wedgies, the shooter is fouled during a try that wedgies), we resume play with the free throw. When a live ball "wedgies" and we already know play will resume with a throw-in (e.g., the second free throw for a technical foul wedgies, a try by an airborne shooter who commits a player control foul wedgies), we resume play with the throw-in. Otherwise, we resume play with an AP throw-in.

NFHS 9-2-8: The thrown ball shall not become lodged between the backboard and ring or come to rest on the flange before it touches or is touched by another player.
PENALTY: (Section 2) The ball becomes dead when the violation ... occurs. Following a violation, the ball is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in at the original throw-in spot.

This rule and penalty apply specifically to committing a throw-in violation. How do we resume play after a throw-in violation? With a throw-in. And we covered that above. However, there appear to be some who haven't yet learned not to argue with Bob. Their thinking seems to be that the wedgie itself is the throw-in violation and that it had not been determined prior to the wedgie that a throw-in would follow.

How do we resolve this rule, considered from this viewpoint, with the preceding one?

NOTE: Any rules statement is made on the assumption that no infraction is involved unless mentioned or implied. If such infraction occurs, the rule governing it is followed. For example, a game or extra period will not start with a jump ball if a foul occurs before the ball becomes live.

Simple, we don't resolve them. When a throw-in violation is involved, its rule is followed instead.

I can't believe it took 18 posts on this thread before someone used the term "wedgie". :rolleyes:

The confusion, if you want to call it that, comes from the fact that the above statement alone is not true. It seems that it would be simple enough to note the exception.


This is true, up to a point. If, after the ball lodges, A1 punches B1, it would be a technical foul and we would enforce that rule. That is obviously a separate infraction.

Something else happened.


But, in the case at hand, what happens in the rule statement itself in the one situation is the infraction. This is a big difference, in my opinion.

An alternating-possession throw-in shall result when: A live ball lodges between the backboard and ring or comes to rest on the flange, unless a free throw or throw-in follows.

Nothing else happened. A free throw or throw-in was not to follow. But an AP throw-in is still not the result.

You're over-thinking this. If the ball lodges during the normal course of play, you go by 6-4-3d. If a throw-in lodges, it is a throw-in violation and 9-2-8 tells us what to do. The more specific takes precedence over the more general.

True, but they are saying that the general case should make a reference to the specific case to alert people who would otherwise believe that the specific situation would be covered by the general rule.

I happen to agree with them.

It's not a question of overthinking. I'm looking at it from the perspective of someone reading the book for the first time.

Live ball............lodged...............hmmmm........ ........let's see.
Ah, here it is. This rule states flatly that we have an AP throw-in. Why would I assume anything else?

Because it does list the exception -- the "unless a throw-in follows" is the exception. That is, it means "if nothing else tells us who gets the ball, use the AP arrow."

I used to think the FED was wrong to develop things for the "least common denominator" of officials. Based on this thread, I might be changing my mind.

Actually the phrase is "unless a free throw or throw-in follows."

I think that, in plain English, in the context in which it is used, this phrase means "unless a free throw or throw-in was to follow had the ball not lodged."

I agree.