Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Old School
This is not the same as the endline privildege. The endline priviledge TI happens right away and the subsequent TI is not a kick ball TI, but an endline priviledged TI, which meant we went back to the condition after the scoring bucket following the kick ball violation.
|
It may feel like a "do-over", but that's not the reason for the result. After the kicked ball (violation by the defense, B), the new TI is for the kicked ball violation. If A's new TI is along the endline, A retains the endline priviledge per 7-5-7. If you read that rule, you'll see if the kicked ball results in the TI happening somewhere other than the endline, there is no endline priviledge; the new TI happens closest to where the violation occured. The rules committee though it put A at an unfair disadvantage to lose the endline priviledge because of a violation by B, if the new TI happens along the endline. This actually follows the same logic as the new rule; you don't lose the APTI if it was never completed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Old School
On the APTI/kick ball, we now go to a new TI, which is the kick ball penality TI. The APTI is put off for the next held/jump ball event. The obvious question that everyone should see and be asking here is WHY?
|
The question we've been asking you, is why should A lose the APTI on a violation by B if the APTI was never completed?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Old School
The EL priviledge event took the kick ball penality TI back to the EL priviledge event. It did not change the TI to a kick ball penality TI and reserved the EL priviledge TI to a future event.
|
That is wrong. Again, read 7-5-7. The new TI is for the kicked ball violation; only if the new TI happens along the endline does the team retain the endline priviledge. If the kick happens near mid-court, the new TI happens near mid-court as well, and the endline priviledge is done.