The Official Forum
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Revised Rule 4-42-5a (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/101651-revised-rule-4-42-5a.html)

Freddy Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam (Post 991283)
That would be my preference, or "at the disposal." Basically once the 5 second throw in count starts.

But I recognize I'm in the minority.
Whoa there. Uh-oh. Wait a second. That's not correct. Rule 6-5-4: "The direction of the AP arrow is reversed immediately after an AP throw-in ends. An AP throw-in ends when the throw-in ends as in 4-42-5."

The scoreboard operator switches the arrow when you hand the ball to the thrower-inner bad things can happen.

OKREF Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 991286)
You're not only in the minority, you're incorrect. :) 6-4-4: "The direction of the possession arrow is reversed immediately after an AP throw-in ends. An AP throw-in ends when the throw-in ends as in 4-42-5."
He knows that. He's saying he preferred the rule said the arrow is switched when it is at the disposal. He isn't implying that's what it says now.

OKREF Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 991289)
Oops, that's an incorrect minority, isn't it? Rule 6-4-4: "The direction of the AP arrow is reversed immedately after an AP throw-in ends...when the throw-in ends as in 4-42-5."

Right?

Bad things can happen when an over-eager arrow-operator switches the AP arrow prior to the end of the AP throw-in.
We both understand the rule as it is currently written. Adam is saying he wished the rule would be rewritten to state that the arrow would change when it is at the disposal of the thrower in. Neither one of us are saying that is what it states now. Actually, changing it to the way Adam is stating would cause less problems.

Freddy Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 991291)
We both understand the rule as it is currently written. Adam is saying he wished the rule would be rewritten to state that the arrow would change when it is at the disposal of the thrower in. Neither one of us are saying that is what it states now. Actually, changing it to the way Adam is stating would cause less problems.
Thanx for your clarification on Adam's preference.

OKREF Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam (Post 991283)
That would be my preference, or "at the disposal." Basically once the 5 second throw in count starts.

But I recognize I'm in the minority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 991292)
Thanx for your clarification on Adam's preference.
It was pretty clear right here.

Shooter14 Thu Sep 29, 2016 01:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 991285)
Sorry, I meant 6-4-5, which says, "The opportunity to make an AP throw-in is lost if the throw-in team violates. . . . If the defensive team commits a violation during the throw-in, the possession arrow is not switched."

So, even if the word "legally" is removed from 4-42-5a, what 6-4-5 says means everything is the same as it's always been.

I prefer that they had left the word "legally" there, but someone must have said, "Hey, since 6-4-5 covers this eventuality, let's just remove this word." Duh.

Does that make sense to you?
There it is. Ok that makes sense now. We kept looking at 6.4.2 last night thinking "what the heck is this guy talking about" ha. Man I just don't understand why they would take the word "legally" out. What does that gain? If anything, it made it more confusing to me. But I see it now.

Shooter14 Thu Sep 29, 2016 01:06pm
I honestly think the reason I didn't read that part of the book while testing last night is because that's right where that "referee magazine" advertisement is and I must have kept skipping over it since it was the very next page. ha.

Shooter14 Thu Sep 29, 2016 01:08pm
If it' s correct that mean's I missed a different one on the test. I have no clue which one I could have missed. That was seriously the only one I was back and forth on.

bob jenkins Thu Sep 29, 2016 01:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 991285)
Sorry, I meant 6-4-5, which says, "The opportunity to make an AP throw-in is lost if the throw-in team violates. . . . If the defensive team commits a violation during the throw-in, the possession arrow is not switched."
Maybe it all hinges on the meaning of the word "during." If the kick ends the throw-in, then the kick wasn't "during" the throw-in (it was simultaneous with the end).

But I do agree that I liked it better the old way, and that a change like this should not be unannounced.

crosscountry55 Thu Sep 29, 2016 01:29pm
Revised Rule 4-42-5a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 991285)
Sorry, I meant 6-4-5, which says, "The opportunity to make an AP throw-in is lost if the throw-in team violates. . . . If the defensive team commits a violation during the throw-in, the possession arrow is not switched."

So, even if the word "legally" is removed from 4-42-5a, what 6-4-5 says means everything is the same as it's always been.

I prefer that they had left the word "legally" there, but someone must have said, "Hey, since 6-4-5 covers this eventuality, let's just remove this word." Duh.

Does that make sense to you?

To me, yes. Well stated. Your hypothesis is that the editors may have been removing redundant language.

So IF the test question that Shooter14 missed is indeed the one he thinks, then the NFHS test editors have managed to outsmart themselves. I guess it wouldn't be the first time.

If he missed a different question, then these last six hours of conversation have been meaningless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bwburke94 Wed Oct 05, 2016 04:07am
Let's think through this logically (not that NFHS is ever logical).

Assuming that this was indeed the question Shooter14 missed, why would the test editors have included an unannounced change on the test?

BigCat Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwburke94 (Post 991455)
Let's think through this logically (not that NFHS is ever logical).

Assuming that this was indeed the question Shooter14 missed, why would the test editors have included an unannounced change on the test?
You should have asked for the winning power ball numbers for later in the week. probably an easier question to answer...:)

MD Longhorn Wed Oct 05, 2016 01:38pm
This all depends upon what the meaning of "is" is.

bwburke94 Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 991465)
This all depends upon what the meaning of "is" is.
Are Bill Clinton jokes topical again, or should we wait for November 8?

OKREF Mon Oct 17, 2016 09:38am
I just got my test back. Here is the question.

During an alternating-possession throw-in by A1, B2 intentionally kicks the throw-in pass. A1 will be awarded a new throw-in opportunity, but the arrow will remain pointed in the direction of A’s basket.

Answer--False

Explanation
6-4-5;4-42-5


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:16pm.
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1