Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
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.
|
There you have it. I rest my case. The rules committe didn't want to put A at a disadvantage on the EL-TI, however, the same committee has put B at an even bigger disadvantage by allowing A to have multiple successive APTI, after they where given the ball back for the same TI. Team A has not been put at a disadvantage. A has not lost the right to throw in the ball and they have not lost the arrow. However, because B kicked the ball, they now lose the next held/jump ball. Think about that before you respond. If I'm B, I'm not kicking the ball, in fact, just let them get it in so we don't lose the next APTI.
I don't understand how come you don't see that. You must be Pro for this change. It has become more of a politic argument for you instead of a realistic argument. Haven't we seen this before (Demorcrats/Republicans). My question to you is what are you Republicans hoping to get from this change? This is a major move to me, adding an And-1 onto the kick ball violation. Giving a team multiple successive AP is bad rule interpretation to me. What's next is my fear....
Quote:
|
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?
|
My answer to this question is A has not lost the APTI. They still have the ball, which is all the APTI can give you is the ball for the TI, plus they still have the arrow because, remember, the touch was not legal. I am in the party that thinks the APTI should NOT guarantee you a successful TI.