|
Originally Posted by d1ref2b
OK. Here is exactly how I worded it to the FHSAA and NFHS. Sorry it is rather wordy. But when dealing with the FHSAA it pays to be thorough as they are not exactly rules people.
I believe there is contradiction between rules 4.42 art. 5, Rule 9-4, and Rule 6-4 art. 5. (NFHS) I think that this conflict can be resolved with a simple modification of rule 4.42, art. 5.
NFHS Rule 4.42 art 5 states that, “the throw in ends when the passed ball touches, or is touched by, another player who is either in bounds or out of bounds.” Rule 9-4 states that a player shall not intentionally kick the ball as in Rule 4-29. Rule 6-4, art. 5 states that the opportunity to make an AP throw in is lost if the throw in team violates, but does not lose the AP arrow if either team fouls. The key word in Rule 4-42, art. 5 is “touches”. Even though an intentional kick is considered illegal (and a violation), it is still touched when kicked and the team making the AP throw in would lose the arrow because of the “illegal” touch by the defensive team.
I think that rule 4.42 art. 5 needs to be amended and the phrase, “legally touched”, should be added to the rule. Below I have provided a scenario describing the rule as written and the same play with the rule changed. No case book play could be found pertaining to this play.
Applied as currently written:
Team A is awarded a throw in as a result of an AP situation. The throw in is made by Team A, but is intentionally kicked by Team B. Rule 9-4 defines a kick as a violation, if intentional, but a kick is still a touch. Therefore, Team A is now awarded a second throw in because of the kicked ball violation by Team B, and Team A subsequently loses the AP arrow because Team B committed a violation by kicking the throw in, but they touched the ball as required by Rule 4.42 art. 5., therefore ending the throw in and having the AP arrow switched to the direction of Team B. Ultimately, Team B committed a violation and was rewarded for that. Under no other situations is a team rewarded because they committed a violation of any kind.
Applied as revised:
Team A is awarded a throw in as a result of an AP situation. The throw in is made by Team A, but is intentionally kicked by Team B. Because the ball was not “legally” touched by a player that was inbounds or out of bounds, the AP throw in did not end. Team A would then be awarded a throw in as a result of the kicking violation by Team B, and would not lose the arrow since they did not commit a violation, as references in Rule 6-4, art 5. The AP arrow will stay pointed towards Team A’s basket, giving Team A the opportunity to make the next AP throw in.
Not only does this change remove any contradiction among the three rules referenced, but also creates consistency between the NFHS rules and the NCAA rules.
This happened last year in the womens NCAA tourney. UT v UNC.
Thanks for all of the input
|