New 16/17 Rules Book

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Just came yesterday. A line-by-line comparison of this year's book and last season's:

4-42-5a was: The throw-in ends when: a. The passed ball touches or is legally touched by another player inbounds.
4-42-5a now is: The throw-in ends when: a. The passed ball touches or is touched by another player inbounds.

Originally Posted by Altor

Does this mean the arrow changes when an AP throw-in is kicked by the defense?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It might. But I think this does not change much of anything in the bigger picture. The team that violated will not get the ball on the next throw-in and for purposes of giving the ball to the wrong team, this ends the time it can be corrected.

This coming year's R4-S42-A5a was the original rule and was changed some years back to last year's R4-S42-A5a to eliminate what Altor has suggested. There is no way that this year's R4-S42-A5a can be interpreted any other way that what Altor has suggested.

MTD, Sr.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

This coming year's R4-S42-A5a was the original rule and was changed some years back to last year's R4-S42-A5a to eliminate what Altor has suggested. There is no way that this year's R4-S42-A5a can be interpreted any other way that what Altor has suggested.

MTD, Sr.

D'Nutch, are you saying that . . .
A1 releases an AP throw-in which is kicked by B2. It's A's throw-in due to the violation but B's AP arrow because of the "new" 4-42-5a?
Am I reading your response correctly?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

This coming year's R4-S42-A5a was the original rule and was changed some years back to last year's R4-S42-A5a to eliminate what Altor has suggested. There is no way that this year's R4-S42-A5a can be interpreted any other way that what Altor has suggested.

MTD, Sr.

I am only asking for the purposes of the throw-in ending like when we make a mistake and give it to the wrong team, would any such touch end that time when when we can make the correction for an AP throw-in. I was not disagreeing with Altor's position. Just stating that that might be the only consequence to this rule change.

Peace

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

This coming year's R4-S42-A5a was the original rule and was changed some years back to last year's R4-S42-A5a to eliminate what Altor has suggested. There is no way that this year's R4-S42-A5a can be interpreted any other way that what Altor has suggested.

MTD, Sr.

I don't think at all they are trying to go back as you suggest.they just don't think of the consequences of the words they use. 4.42.5 I think, has said for years that the AP throwin ended when ball was kicked. New throw in for violation. That was not a "legal touch" etc. they mix up their words. i don't think it changes anything although u can argue it from the words used.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I don't think at all they are trying to go back as you suggest.they just don't think of the consequences of the words they use. 4.42.5 I think, has said for years that the AP throwin ended when ball was kicked. New throw in for violation. That was not a "legal touch" etc. they mix up their words. i don't think it changes anything although u can argue it from the words used.

The change does mean just what I said. Unless the NFHS issues a statement stating that the change was a typo the rules means the that the rule will revert back to the old ruling.

MTD, Sr.

[Altor]

Freddy, do you have the case book too? Can you confirm whether 4.42.5 has been removed or is still in print?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Altor

Freddy, do you have the case book too? Can you confirm whether 4.42.5 has been removed or is still in print?

The new casebook I ordered, though "Available in August", has not been delivered yet. Will report to the forum after I get it.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The change does mean just what I said. Unless the NFHS issues a statement stating that the change was a typo the rules means the that the rule will revert back to the old ruling.

MTD, Sr.

I'm sure we will hear more about it. My point is that this would be a significant change. You would think it would be an "announced change." When its "unannounced" it leads me to believe somebody is thinking they are cleaning up some language but not thinking through everything that the change affects. We will see...

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I'm sure we will hear more about it. My point is that this would be a significant change. You would think it would be an "announced change." When its "unannounced" it leads me to believe somebody is thinking they are cleaning up some language but not thinking through everything that the change affects. We will see...

Big Cat:

I agree with you. But you never know with rules committees when most of the members are not officials.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I don't think at all they are trying to go back as you suggest.they just don't think of the consequences of the words they use. 4.42.5 I think, has said for years that the AP throwin ended when ball was kicked. New throw in for violation. That was not a "legal touch" ...

Here's the "old" wording:

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.