6-4-5

[Pantherdreams]

Foul interrupts your inbounds opportunity before you have a chance to complete it or have.

Violation ends your opportunity and thus completes it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bas2456

Sure. I get that.

This seems like it should be a (in very technical terms, obviously) you-had-your-chance kind of a situation.

The rule makers have determined, and most here agree with the logic, that the AP should entitle a team to a complete throw in rather than just an opportunity for a throw in.

I personally think it would be simpler and make more sense to switch the arrow as soon as the ball is at the disposal of the throw in team. To me, the arrow has done its job, and anything that happens during that throw in is the direct result of the AP arrow.

I'm in the minority, though.

[Hartsy]

Originally Posted by Adam

I personally think it would be simpler and make more sense to switch the arrow as soon as the ball is at the disposal of the throw in team. To me, the arrow has done its job, and anything that happens during that throw in is the direct result of the AP arrow.

Right off hand I can't see how this would be a problem.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Hartsy

Right off hand I can't see how this would be a problem.

Primarily, there's really no reason for the change other than added simplicity. The way it's done now doesn't really create any problems. It's just not how I'd do it.

[Hartsy]

Originally Posted by Adam

Primarily, there's really no reason for the change other than added simplicity. The way it's done now doesn't really create any problems. It's just not how I'd do it.

Hey, I'm agreeing with you. Don't talk me out of it

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hartsy

hey, i'm agreeing with you. Don't talk me out of it

yeah, I realized that.

Never mind.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Hartsy

Right off hand I can't see how this would be a problem.

Some would see it as a problem and others wouldn't. I don't really mind either way, but I think changing it gives the defense more of an advantage. Now after a jump ball you can be more physical trying to stop the other teams' star player(s) from catching the ball. At least now if you commit the foul as the defense you'll get the next AP arrow. One example.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Dad

Some would see it as a problem and others wouldn't. I don't really mind either way, but I think changing it gives the defense more of an advantage. Now after a jump ball you can be more physical trying to stop the other teams' star player(s) from catching the ball. At least now if you commit the foul as the defense you'll get the next AP arrow. One example.

I doubt teams really strategize whether or not to foul based on how it affects the arrow: but again, in my view, the arrow would still have done its job by giving A the throw in that B used to foul. If B is going to foul here, I doubt they're being deterred by the fact that the arrow isn't going to change if they do. Hell, I doubt they even realize that's the case now.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Adam

I doubt teams really strategize whether or not to foul based on how it affects the arrow: but again, in my view, the arrow would still have done its job by giving A the throw in that B used to foul. If B is going to foul here, I doubt they're being deterred by the fact that the arrow isn't going to change if they do. Hell, I doubt they even realize that's the case now.

Fair enough, I'll use one that's a bit more practical.

5 seconds left in the 4th and A is ahead by 1 and there has just been a jump ball in favor of A. B now definitely wants to foul before the ball is in-bounded to make sure the clock never starts. B3 holds A3 trying to keep them from getting the ball. A3 shoots a 1&1 and misses. A2 and B2 now have a jump ball. Because of the AP arrow change B now gets the ball instead of A.

I'm not sure what to make of plays like this, but it would be a game changing rule(rarely).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Dad

Fair enough, I'll use one that's a bit more practical.

5 seconds left in the 4th and A is ahead by 1 and there has just been a jump ball in favor of A. B now definitely wants to foul before the ball is in-bounded to make sure the clock never starts. B3 holds A3 trying to keep them from getting the ball. A3 shoots a 1&1 and misses. A2 and B2 now have a jump ball. Because of the AP arrow change B now gets the ball instead of A.

I'm not sure what to make of plays like this, but it would be a game changing rule(rarely).

Oh, my change would definitely affect a few different scenarios.

AP throw in, A reaches the ball across the OOB plane and B1 grabs it and ties it up. Currently, A gets a new AP throw in. Under my change, B would get an AP throw in.

Any foul by either team would not result in the arrow staying put; that would be a change.

[CountTheBasket]

If the AP arrow did not switch on a 5-sec violation...

A1 & B1 tie up the ball, the arrow points towards team A. However, there are only .4 seconds left in the half, and not much of a chance to score so team A takes the violation, in an attempt to get the ball to start 2H (a much more valuable possession). Team B now says, wow, what a great, innovative idea. So they take that same 5 second violation.... You will now be doing this game, and calling 5 second violations for the rest of your life!

[Altor]

Originally Posted by CountTheBasket

If the AP arrow did not switch on a 5-sec violation...

A1 & B1 tie up the ball, the arrow points towards team A. However, there are only .4 seconds left in the half, and not much of a chance to score so team A takes the violation, in an attempt to get the ball to start 2H (a much more valuable possession). Team B now says, wow, what a great, innovative idea. So they take that same 5 second violation.... You will now be doing this game, and calling 5 second violations for the rest of your life!

No, because Team B's throw-in is not an AP throw-in. So they gain nothing by committing a 5-second violation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Altor

No, because Team B's throw-in is not an AP throw-in. So they gain nothing by committing a 5-second violation.

Yep. there may be issues that could arise, but this would not be one.