Camron Rust |
Tue Apr 24, 2012 06:32pm |
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
(Post 838730)
I didn't make myself clear. I want the a throw-in caught OOB by A2 to be considered a throw-in violation with the ball returned to original spot, while a throw-in caught OOB by B2 to be a OOB violation with ensuing throw-in at spot of violation.
|
Why would you want that?
Keep it simple.
A player who touches the ball while OOB has committed an OOB violation and the throwin spot is the spot where they touched the ball.
Why complicated it with which player touches it or whether it is from a throwin or not? Your idea doesn't really solve or improve anything?
You'd also have to decide if A2 stepped OOB before or after touching the ball....and the splitting of that hair could make a big difference regarding the throwin spot. If you keep it at the spot of the touch, it is simple.
If A2 and B2 are both going for the ball and one is OOB, you have to split another hair...who touched it first and the result could drastically different. As it is, you only care that the player OOB touched the ball...the order doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
(Post 838730)
Still, a throw-in caught OOB by B2, would the throw-in be considered ended for the purposes of the AP arrow?
|
And, yes, the throw in legally ended (unless the contact itself was illegal as in a kicked ball)....AP would switch.
|