Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
The "violation" in 6.4.5A means a "throw-in violation" (5-seconds, stepping across the line, not passing the ball directly on the court, etc.).
It doesn't mean a kicking violation.
|
I don't agree.
6-4 are the rules addressing Alternating Possession.
4-42 are the rules addressing Throw-in, Thrower and Designated Spot.
4-42 does not address or have any bearing on when the Alternating Possession arrow is reversed. It only addresses the the items mentioned above. For the purposes of Alternating Possession, it does tell us when a throw-in ends. And a throw-in ends when the throw-in team commits a throw-in violation.
6-4 addresses how we are to handle the Alternating Possessions and when the Alternating Arrow is to be reversed. It has 2 articles that address this. 6-4-4 tells us that the arrow is reversed when the throw-in ends. If 6-4-5 didn't mean something other that 6-4-4, why would it be in the book. It would be redundant.
"Violation" is defined in 4-46. Throw-in violations are part of that definition as described in 9-2. But I don't believe the NF chose to write their rules by saying that we defined "violations" but as far as 6-4 goes only consider 9-2
and ignore 9-4. I do think 9-4 is the only violation that would likely happen during a throw-in, but it is very possible.
If 6-4-5 didn't mean any violation, why would 6.4.5A say: "A violation by Team A during an alternating-possession throw-in is the only way a team loses its turn under the procedure?" All of the ways that a throw-in ends would be a way that a team loses its turn under the procedure.
I am not convinced that 6-4-5 only refers to throw-in violations.
Edit: Since this thread has taken on a few scenarios, let me clarify: Team A is awarded an alternating-possession throw-in. A violation (9-4 or any violation 9-1 thru 13) by Team B = no reversal of the alternating-possession arrow. A violation (9-4 or any violation 9-1 thru 13) by Team A = reversal of the alternating-possession arrow.