Revised Rule 4-42-5a

[Shooter14]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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