Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
Since I started this mess, I'll answer your question. Your proverbial coach is a moron, just as the coach who teaches his offensive players to foul under the current rule set just so the arrow doesn't switch. Under my proposal, there's no more advantage to kicking this ball than on any other throw in? Under the current rule, the punishment is stronger for kicking the ball on an AP throw-in than on any other throw-in.
Current rule:
If a player kicks the ball on an AP throw-in, the arrow which would have switched to his team now will not.
My proposal:
If a player kicks the ball on an AP throw-in, the arrow switches as it normally would have had the player not kicked the ball.
|
How is the punishment stronger for kicking the ball on an AP throw-in versus a non-AP throw-in?
In both cases, the non-violating team gets a repeat throw-in and the arrow doesn't change. Where's the difference?
And as written, under that proposal the team that committed the kicking violation will now get the arrow. And they now can commit a foul
during the ensuing non-AP throw-in and not have to worry about losing the arrow either. And you don't think that's not gaining an unfair advantage by committing a violation?
And if you get another moronic coach in the last coupla minutes of a game who doesn't have the arrow or a DOG warning, what's your suggestion if that moronic coach instructs his defender to deliberately break the plane after the thrower gets the ball and the arrow has been switched? The throwing team gets a repeat throw-in but the moronic coach's team only gets the DOG warning
and also gets the arrow. Isn't that also gaining an advantage by committing an illegal act?
Some of these moronic coaches are pretty smart.
Your logic escapes me, Snaqs.