OK (not OT) - here's my guess

[APG]

Originally Posted by dragonref

I'm sure that's what Art 9 should mean and that is the way it is ruled, but that's not what it says - there is no "immediately" or some such word along with the "after throw-in ends".

What is confusing about the wording? Who said anything about immediately? Art. 9 says that even though there's team control, the team in control can cause the ball to go into the backcourt and retrieve the ball in the backcourt, after the throw-in ends (ball is legally touched), if player control hasn't been established.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

What is confusing about the wording? Who said anything about immediately? Art. 9 says that even though there's team control, the team in control can cause the ball to go into the backcourt and retrieve the ball in the backcourt, after the throw-in ends (ball is legally touched), if player control hasn't been established.

I don't think there's anything confusing about the rule, but it does seem to be worded poorly. I don't see anything in the rule itself that says "before player control is established following a throw-in." IOW, by strict reading, a player could catch the throw-in pass in the FC and pass to a teammate. That teammate could tip it into the BC w/o penalty.

Obviously, we know what the intent is, and verbal precision has never been a hallmark of rule writers, so it gets enforced as intended rather than as written.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I don't think there's anything confusing about the rule, but it does seem to be worded poorly. I don't see anything in the rule itself that says "before player control is established following a throw-in." IOW, by strict reading, a player could catch the throw-in pass in the FC and pass to a teammate. That teammate could tip it into the BC w/o penalty.

Obviously, we know what the intent is, and verbal precision has never been a hallmark of rule writers, so it gets enforced as intended rather than as written.

There is someone around here who will argue that we do not know the intent of the rule.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

There is someone around here who will argue that we do not know the intent of the rule.

And what he means is that he can't figure it out.