Lodged FT

Back In The Saddle

just another ref wrote
The confusion, if you want to call it that, comes from the fact that the above statement alone is not true. It seems that it would be simple enough to note the exception.

This is true, up to a point. If, after the ball lodges, A1 punches B1, it would be a technical foul and we would enforce that rule. That is obviously a separate infraction.

Something else happened.

But, in the case at hand, what happens in the rule statement itself in the one situation is the infraction. This is a big difference, in my opinion.

An alternating-possession throw-in shall result when: A live ball lodges between the backboard and ring or comes to rest on the flange, unless a free throw or throw-in follows.

Nothing else happened. A free throw or throw-in was not to follow. But an AP throw-in is still not the result.

You're over-thinking this. If the ball lodges during the normal course of play, you go by 6-4-3d. If a throw-in lodges, it is a throw-in violation and 9-2-8 tells us what to do. The more specific takes precedence over the more general.

Nevadaref

Back In The Saddle wrote
You're over-thinking this. If the ball lodges during the normal course of play, you go by 6-4-3d. If a throw-in lodges, it is a throw-in violation and 9-2-8 tells us what to do. The more specific takes precedence over the more general.

True, but they are saying that the general case should make a reference to the specific case to alert people who would otherwise believe that the specific situation would be covered by the general rule.

I happen to agree with them.

just another ref

Back In The Saddle wrote
You're over-thinking this. If the ball lodges during the normal course of play, you go by 6-4-3d.

It's not a question of overthinking. I'm looking at it from the perspective of someone reading the book for the first time.

Live ball............lodged...............hmmmm................let's see.
Ah, here it is. This rule states flatly that we have an AP throw-in. Why would I assume anything else?

bob jenkins

just another ref wrote
It's not a question of overthinking. I'm looking at it from the perspective of someone reading the book for the first time.

Live ball............lodged...............hmmmm................let's see.
Ah, here it is. This rule states flatly that we have an AP throw-in. Why would I assume anything else?

Because it does list the exception -- the "unless a throw-in follows" is the exception. That is, it means "if nothing else tells us who gets the ball, use the AP arrow."

I used to think the FED was wrong to develop things for the "least common denominator" of officials. Based on this thread, I might be changing my mind.

just another ref

bob jenkins wrote
Because it does list the exception -- the "unless a throw-in follows" is the exception. That is, it means "if nothing else tells us who gets the ball, use the AP arrow."

Actually the phrase is "unless a free throw or throw-in follows."

I think that, in plain English, in the context in which it is used, this phrase means "unless a free throw or throw-in was to follow had the ball not lodged."

Nevadaref

just another ref wrote
Actually the phrase is "unless a free throw or throw-in follows."

I think that, in plain English, in the context in which it is used, this phrase means "unless a free throw or throw-in was to follow had the ball not lodged."

I agree.

« Previous Page