Quote:
|
Originally Posted by OHBBREF
Look at it this way:
team A has an AP throw in - A1 tosses the ball toward A2 - but A2 is held by B2 - foul called - Team A still retains the AP throw in due to the foul on B - BECAUSE THE THROW IN WAS NOT COMPLETED - what is the difference on a kicked ball?
The ball was not legally touched so throw in was not completed. I do not see all of the controversy here it seems pretty black and white/ red and green or what ever - Now if you choose to use your own set of rules and not follow what the book says to do - then you are going to have a problem,
|
Nobody making up their own rules. The problem here, at least for you word scholars, is the completion of the AP throw-in resulting in the arrow being pointed the other way.
To me, far too much attention is being placed on the completion when, imo, once the team is granted the arrow, then it should switch. Otherwise, enter the word scholar bullsh!t. Now you're saying the throw-in didn't complete so the arrow don't chance. That's BS. The AP has or should have nothing to do with the throw-in. It grants possession, that's it! That's all it's used for, now you attaching the throw-in as to the completion of the AP, is adding extra responsiblity to something that doesn't need it, and it changes the definition of the AP and the use of the AP.
Consider this, if we add a jump ball instead of the AP. That is fairer then our current use of the AP, because no extra is added to the JB. No throw-in that has to be completed for the JB to be completed, therefore, no violation can occur that would cause the JB not to happen. We have completely circumvented this rule and created our own definition of the AP, and it makes no sense, and it no longer does what it was initially designed to do, imho.
I guess I'm the only one out here who actually cares about the game. You are only concerned about the rules and that's too bad.