Revised Rule 4-42-5a

[bwburke94]

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]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

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]

This all depends upon what the meaning of "is" is.

[bwburke94]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

This all depends upon what the meaning of "is" is.

Are Bill Clinton jokes topical again, or should we wait for November 8?

[OKREF]

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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

The test writers need to get with the interp writers:

SITUATION 11: Team A is awarded an alternating-possession throw-in. After A1 releases the ball, B1 commits a kicking violation. RULING: A1’s throw-in has ended because of B1’s kicking violation. A new throw-in is awarded to Team A at the spot out-of-bounds nearest to where the kicking violation occurred. NOTE: Because the defensive team committed a violation during the alternating-possession throwin, the alternating-possession arrow is not switched.

[Shooter14]

Yep!! That is the one I missed then, I marked true.

If that is False, 6-4-5 says otherwise to me.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The test writers need to get with the interp writers:

SITUATION 11: Team A is awarded an alternating-possession throw-in. After A1 releases the ball, B1 commits a kicking violation. RULING: A1’s throw-in has ended because of B1’s kicking violation. A new throw-in is awarded to Team A at the spot out-of-bounds nearest to where the kicking violation occurred. NOTE: Because the defensive team committed a violation during the alternating-possession throwin, the alternating-possession arrow is not switched.

Look at it like this. According to the new language in 4-42-5-a, "the throw in ends when the ball touches or is touched by another player inbounds". When the thrown ball is kicked(touched), the arrow will change to B. Because that touching(the kicking), is a violation Team A gets a throw in for that violation, however since the word legally has been removed, the arrow should be switched at the time of the touching(the kick) by B. So the arrow will stay with B. The above situation actually says that, it just doesn't say who has the arrow.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Shooter14

So does the interp say to not switch it?

Yep

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The test writers need to get with the interp writers:

SITUATION 11: Team A is awarded an alternating-possession throw-in. After A1 releases the ball, B1 commits a kicking violation. RULING: A1’s throw-in has ended because of B1’s kicking violation. A new throw-in is awarded to Team A at the spot out-of-bounds nearest to where the kicking violation occurred. NOTE: Because the defensive team committed a violation during the alternating-possession throwin, the alternating-possession arrow is not switched.