[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Old School

First, plugging the hole. If there was a foul or viloation before, the AP would stay with the inbounding team (team A), provided Team B committed the foul or violation. After we had a successful inbound, either team with legal control, then it would switch. My problem is, what needed to be fixed here? I'm just not seeing it.

I know you're not seeing it, because you're looking in the wrong place. Your statement above, in red, is incorrect. The arrow switches immediately after the throw-in ends, per rule 6-4-4. A throw-in ends when the passed ball touches, or is touched by another player, as per rule 4-42-5, (up to 2006). It does not need to be controlled by either team for the arrow to switch. The hole, as you put it, is the question of what kind of touch constitutes the end of the throw-in. Can a kick, which is an illegal touch, be a touch that ends the throw-in, and in the case of an AP throw-in, switch the arrow? That is what has been argued in the past. This year, the rules committee decided to plug that hole and eliminate the argument by stating the throw-in ends when the ball is legally touched by a player.

Originally Posted by Old School

The new rule. Now, if there is a violation by the defense Team B, the AP was never completed and therefore the next jump ball stays with the current team. The problem here is this ruling has made it worse, imho. You are telling the defense to not try and play defense, just let them get the ball in so that the freaking arrow will change the other way. This is not what we want to happen to the game.

So, are you saying kicking the ball is good defense? These types of statements diminish your credibility. No wise (basketball) man would ever state this. The reason team A gets another throw-in is because team B kicked the ball. If, during the next throw-in, team B kicks it again, team A will get another throw-in. If team B kicks it 5 times in a row, team A will get 5 throw-ins in a row. Are you saying that's just not fair to team B?

Originally Posted by Old School

The OP stated as well as many others that there associations,when discussing this change couldn't come to an agreement.

Actually, if you go back and read the entire thread, you'll see the ruling actually does agree with the NFHS rule change; the original association ruling appears to be a typo in the association publication.

Originally Posted by Old School

I just think we can do better and as offcials we should demand better rule changes from our rule makers.

Actually, I believe most of us demand better rules knowledge from our fellow officials. I hope you've learned something today. Confucius (a very wise man) once said, "The journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step." I hope your journey to the land of rules knowledge has begun today.