Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Sure the throwin has ened by the kick. However, the rules are written as if uncomplicated by other issues. In this case, two things occur simultaneously. In cases of simultaneous events, one is often assumed to have occurred first. For example:
- When jumper B5 grabs the ball on the jump, B5 is called for a violation. The ball is given to A and the arrow to B. The violation is considered to occur before the possession.
- When, after a made basket, B3, who is near the endline, kicks the throwin a violation is called on team B and team A retains the right to run the endline. The violation is effectively considered to have occured before the throwin ended. (If the throwin had ended prior to the kick, team A would not have retained the run of the endline).
So, which happens first in this case? I'd say, based on the two examples I listed, that a violation is assumed to occur first when it is simultaneous with another event that is not an infraction. The arrow should remain unchanged in both cases. The throwin for the kick supercedes the prior reason for a throwin and what happens during it no longer have any bearing on the arrow.
|
Camron, if the FED wanted to complicate a rule with "other issues", then they woulda written another rule to cover those "other issues". In this case, they didn't. There is no rules justification that I know of that will allow you to let team A keep the arrow. Cingram posted the relevant and applicable rule, albeit from last year's rule book. R4-41-5 from last year is now R4-42-5 this year. The throw-in ended with the kick by B. You penalize the kick as per R9-4 and switch the arrow as per R6-4-4 and R4-42-5. There are no rules extant that I know of that will allow you to do otherwise.
Rules rulez! 
|
Jurassic, I gotta agree with you, except for your supposition that "if the FED wanted to complicate a rule with "other issues", then they woulda written another rule to cover those "other issues"." You're giving them way too much credit. These are the people who say that 'premeditated' and 'intentional' are not synomyms, the people who in one place define things by what they are and, in the next moment, by what they aren't.
I gotta say I was too easily persuaded by Cameron - but his point - that there could be some generality that would make deducing the correct interpretation for these kinds of situations - deserves to be fully thought out.