Quote:
|
Originally Posted by OHBBREF
You specifically wanted to stick to the NFHS Rules for now:
Under NFHS there is NO TEAM CONTROL ON A THROW IN - so there is no possession -therefore- by your own logic it does guarantee the COMPLETION of the throw in so that you have team control of the ball (possession).
|
Understood! Thanks for clarification, but we still have a problem.
Quote:
|
They get to keep the ball for the same reason that they get to keep the AP Arrow if the Defense commits a violation. The AP throw in has not been completed!
|
Wrong! The AP is completed, imho! They get to keep the ball because of the violation. The held ball situation is no more at this point in time. If the AP doesn’t guarantee successful throw-in, then why shouldn’t it switch right now? You say that a team shouldn't lose possession because of a violation. Well, they didn't. They still got the ball for the in-bound. What is so great or so bad, that a violation of the throw-in puts the team in possession of the AP arrow at a disadvantage where you need to tweak the rules in the favor of the offense? How are they so disadvangated? I don't understand this piece.
Remember why the AP was brought in, in the first place. Once I jump the ball, the held ball-jump ball (AP) situation is over, especially if there’s a violation. For instance, I toss the ball on the jump, it gets tipped, while trying to retrieve tip ball, B4 kicks the ball off A3 and then OOB. Violation Team B for the kick ball, team A gets the ball, Team b gets the arrow (AP). That is how it would be done if we jumped it.
Now, we got something that doesn’t even resemble the jump ball situation. You smart brain wizards, and I’m disappointed Mark on the fact that you can’t see this, but you guys have outsmarted yourself. The payload to this new rule is too big a price to pay for me. Team A, getting multiple AP possessions because of a violation by the defense, is not the original intent of the rule and it is not going to fly. I’m telling you, the space shuttle is going to blow up on takeoff. Some smart-azz engineer has got this new idea and it does not coincide with the original design. It sounds good on paper but it ain’t gonna fly.
It may be the rule, but it is not a good rule. We need to think a little bit harder about this one.