Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy
New Casebook just arrived . . .
How does this harmonize with the newly revised Rule 4-42-5a cited in recent thread?
4.42.5 SITUATION: Team A is awarded an alternating-possession throw-in. A1's throw-in pass is illegally kicked by B2. RULING: As a result of B2's kicking violation, Team A is awarded a new throw-in at the designated spot nearest to where the kicking violation (illegal touching) occurred. Since the alternating-possession throw-in had not been contacted legally, the throw-in has not ended and therefore, the arrow remains with Team A for the next alternating-possession throw-in. COMMENT: The kicking violation ends the alternating-possession throw-in and as a result, a non-alternating-possession throw-in is administered. When the ball is legally touched on the subsequent throw-in following the kicking violation, the arrow shall not be changed and shall remain with Team A. (6-4-5)
|
It is the same as it has been. The change you quoted seems like a mistake to me as I mentioned in other thread. The arrow is not changing. But, we have 6-4-5 which says if defense violates during throw in arrow isn't switched. Taking out "legally" doesn't have much of an effect if you consider the kick as part of the throw-in and that same act, the kick also ending it. Don't change arrow.
Maybe they tried to make the wording of the rule consistent with this play. The kick, illegal touch, does end the AP throw in. Next throw in is for the kick. More I think more I think this is what they might be doing...I think...