View Single Post
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 16, 2006, 10:27pm
rainmaker rainmaker is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
Send a message via AIM to rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
Because it is a silly rule.

The team should lose the arrow if it fouls OR violates during the AP throw-in. Just my silly opinion.

The current rationale is that an AP throw-in ends when the ball is touched inbounds or the throwing team violates. Since the arrow is reversed when the throw-in ends, we have a change for a violation.

Nope, the current rationale is that you don't penalize a team twice if it commits a foul or violation. Each act carries it's own separate penalty. Adding an AP loss is double jeopardy.

Thinking otherwise is silly, thilly. Really.
But it is double jeopardy if they penalize a violation by both taking away the ball and the arrow, isn't it? I know that's not the logic that's being used, but I think either way could be rational. They just happened to settle on the one that's there.
Reply With Quote