Revised Rule 4-42-5a

[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.