Inconsistency a second time

[deecee]

Originally Posted by maven

This is what I meant to say — somehow I was thinking of a try instead of a FT. The point is: A did not violate, so this case would not fall under the rule covering when both teams violate.

There is no difference on a try either. It would still NOT be an AP throw in.

[APG]

9-1-4 refers to free throw provisions violated by both teams. B1 violated by entering early while A1 never committed a free throw violation but rather an OOB violation.

[Kelvin green]

Originally Posted by APG

9-1-4 refers to free throw provisions violated by both teams. B1 violated by entering early while A1 never committed a free throw violation but rather an OOB violation.

Duh! Told you i was missing something... Thanks

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by deecee

There is no difference on a try either. It would still NOT be an AP throw in.

The wire and over the BB are considered out of bounds, correct? Thus whoever causes the ball to touch a wire, support or go over the backboard is in violation and the ball goes to the other team. It is not AP or am I missing something?

[gslefeb]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

The wire and over the BB are considered out of bounds, correct? Thus whoever causes the ball to touch a wire, support or go over the backboard is in violation and the ball goes to the other team. It is not AP or am I missing something?

It is an out of bounds violation and touching the wire makes the ball dead. It is not a free throw violation. Therefore, penalize only team B for their violation.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

It is an out of bounds violation and touching the wire makes the ball dead. It is not a free throw violation. Therefore, penalize only team B for their violation.

Should have been more clear. I meant on non FT tries.