Except that a legal throwin isn't defined to require that. In fact. It is explicitly defined to not require that.

And still, why make more variations in situations....either way team B gets the ball.

If it so explicit why the ruling from Mr. Hyland that puts the ball back at the original throw-in spot even if B2 makes the catch?

And definitions and rules can change and evolve and you may or may not agree with them. Thus the phrase "IMO".

Maybe he didn't read the rule before making his statement.

I had a play two weekends ago it went like this: Team A, with 1.2 seconds on the clock and up 2 points, has an sideline throw in. They call a timeout and come out with a play that gets a wide open pass down the court on the same sideline, problem is the thrower in (A1) throws it so the ball hooks out.

Player A2 who is the intended target is trying to stay in bounds and grab the ball, he fails.

I was the official who handed the ball to player A1 for the original throw in. So I had the chop of the clock. The clock ran to .7 seconds. I run down the court and ask the covering official if the player A2 was standing OOB when he caught the ball. The official says he was. I get the crew together, it's 3 man crew. I tell them, we didn't have a legal throw in, since the player was standing OOB when he caught it. I also interpret that no time could have ran off the clock and the ball should be put back at the original spot.

So Team B gets the ball on their side of the court with 1.2 and they end up missing a pretty wide open 3 pointer to win the game.

Now I'm wondering if we adjudicated it correctly. At the time, the ruling "felt" correct, and now I'm hearing both sides of this argument. But as far as intention goes, the way we adjudicated still "feels" right to me.

I think it's pretty simple.

ANY TIME a player is touching a live ball when he's on or over the boundary line, unless he's executing a throw-in, he has caused the ball to go out of bounds.

If a throw-in touches something out of bounds before it touches a player, it's a throw-in violation.

Now, as in Toren's case, if a throw-in is first touched by someone out of bounds, there's no way time can elapse, as the violation is immediate.

Your play is why I "want" this play deemed a throw-in violation and the ensuing throw-in returned to the original spot. To me it makes a difference whether it was the offense or the defense who violated.

+1

Why everyone doesnt see it this way, I dont know. Makes total sense in all 3 codes.