Revised Rule 4-42-5a

[Freddy]

It was expressed in another forum that the lack of the word "legally" in this rule does not really matter because of what rule 6-4-2 says. ... that nothing really changes even though the word legally has been deleted. Agree?

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by Freddy

It was expressed in another forum that the lack of the word "legally" in this rule does not really matter because of what rule 6-4-2 says. ... that nothing really changes even though the word legally has been deleted. Agree?

Take a look at the caseplay:

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)

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

Take a look at the caseplay:

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)

If the removal of the word "legally" in rule 4-42-5a, then the casebook play you cite is now incorrect: "Since the alternating-possession throw-in had not been contacted legally, the throw-in has not ended..." The COMMENT there seems correct, but not the wording of the RULING.

I do agree that whether the word "legally" appears in 4-42-5a or not, the wording of rule 6-4-2 means that it really doesn't make any difference--illegal contact by the defense won't mean the throwing team loses the AP arrow and illegal contact by the throwing team means they will. Right?

[deecee]

HUH?? The word legally makes all the difference.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Freddy

If the removal of the word "legally" in rule 4-42-5a, then the casebook play you cite is now incorrect: "Since the alternating-possession throw-in had not been contacted legally, the throw-in has not ended..." The COMMENT there seems correct, but not the wording of the RULING.

I do agree that whether the word "legally" appears in 4-42-5a or not, the wording of rule 6-4-2 means that it really doesn't make any difference--illegal contact by the defense won't mean the throwing team loses the AP arrow and illegal contact by the throwing team means they will. Right?

Correct. If the throwin team violates the arrow is changed. If the defense violates the arrow stays and the next throwin is for the defensive violation.

[Shooter14]

I just took the test and switched my answer last second and missed it. I marked that the arrow stays the same direction and missed it. According to the rule book THIS YEAR the throw-in ends when it is just "TOUCHED", therefore in my opinion a kicking violation is a "touch" and the arrow will switch. A still gets a new throw-in but B will have the next one.

I initially answered it that way, but changed it last second and according to NFHS, I missed it.

[crosscountry55]

Wait....so you're saying that what we generally presumed was an editing oversight actually is literally correct, i.e. a kicked throw-in ends the throw-in and the arrow switches? And the test reflects this?

If so....wow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[deecee]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Wait....so you're saying that what we generally presumed was an editing oversight actually is literally correct, i.e. a kicked throw-in ends the throw-in and the arrow switches? And the test reflects this?

If so....wow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe it is my understanding that the new change is meant to switch the arrow on all touches. Will have to wait for our rules meeting to confirm what the natives have interpreted this as.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

I believe it is my understanding that the new change is meant to switch the arrow on all touches. Will have to wait for our rules meeting to confirm what the natives have interpreted this as.

Maybe some day they'll go all the way to the way I want to see it.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Adam

Maybe some day they'll go all the way to the way I want to see it.

Arrow switches when given to player who is throwing the ball in?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Arrow switches when given to player who is throwing the ball in?

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.

[crosscountry55]

But the original rule change several years ago was specifically created to prevent the defense from receiving an unintended advantage by the action of kicking an AP throw-in. Perfectly logical.

So what possible impetus could NFHS have had to make this change? There was no chatter, no demand signal that I'm aware of, and certainly no comments or rationale regarding the tiny change that we wouldn't have even been aware of had it not been for one of our esteemed Forum members doing a word-for-word comparison between this year's and last year's books.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Freddy]

I am advocating what another proposed to me, that whether the word "legally" appears in 4-42-5a or not, the wording of rule 6-4-5 (edited to be correct) means that it really doesn't make any difference. Nothing will change.
Illegal contact by the defense won't mean the throwing team loses the AP arrow and a violation by illegal contact by the throwing team means they will.
Read 6-4-5 (edited to be correct) and see if that makes sense to you. If not, I'll redirect my concerns back to the original issue.

[Shooter14]

Am I looking at the wrong book? My 6.4.2 says "To start the second, third, fourth quarters, the throw in shall be from out of bounds at the division line opposite the table"

6.4.4 says "An alternating possession throw in ends when the throw in ends as in 4-42-5.

Then when you go to 4-42-5, it says "The throw in ends when the passed ball touches or IS TOUCHED by another player inbounds.

I'm sorry guys but with that wording, a kicked ball is a touch. Why would they take legally out and highlight "or is touched by". That is not a mistake in wording, that's a definitive change in the rule.

There's a chance I missed another question, but not a good one. Me and my partner know the rules pretty well already, but spent about 3 hours taking the test and looked every single one up. I missed one. This has to be the one. None of the others are even in question to us.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Shooter14

Am I looking at the wrong book? My 6.4.2 says...

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?