Line violation

[Refsmitty]

Based on what I learned from this thread -I would go with 'nothing', but I will do some reading on it as well.

[Adam]

Actually, I was thinking it's a violation based on leaving the throw-in spot.

However, I'm not positive, as the definition of throw-in spot only specifies width while pointedly stating there is no depth limitation. Since it doesn't say anything about having a boundary equal to the boundary line, I have to say you're right. It's nothing.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Actually, I was thinking it's a violation based on leaving the throw-in spot.

However, I'm not positive, as the definition of throw-in spot only specifies width while pointedly stating there is no depth limitation. Since it doesn't say anything about having a boundary equal to the boundary line, I have to say you're right. It's nothing.

Right, there's no depth limitation either way.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Actually, I was thinking it's a violation based on leaving the throw-in spot.

However, I'm not positive, as the definition of throw-in spot only specifies width while pointedly stating there is no depth limitation. Since it doesn't say anything about having a boundary equal to the boundary line, I have to say you're right. It's nothing.

I disagree. The designated throw-in spot is entirely OOB. If the thrower does not have one foot over the OOB area, then he does not have at least one foot on or over the designated throw-in spot. I'd call a violation.