4.42.5 in New 16/17 Case Book
 

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...

Adding the word "legally" about 15 years ago was a purposeful and announced editorial change.

Seeing that the casebook play hasn't changed, I'm now fairly certain that the removal of the word was probably a well-intentioned effort to clean up the sentence by removing an adverb that seemed purposeless. This could have been done by an intern who was in 3rd grade 15 years ago and didn't understand the historical context of the adverb in question.

I'm just wondering why it seems the book must be re-proofread cover to cover every year? If you're not dealing with a section that had changes, and you haven't received any commentary or feedback about a particular section or article, why even bother proofreading it? If it aint broke, don't fix it!

Getting into word definitions here: is "during the throw-in" considered to include the action that ends the throw-in? If so, then the arrow doesn't change.