Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 990974)

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?

Originally Posted by PG_Ref (Post 990979)

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)

Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 990980)

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?

Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 991263)

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

Originally Posted by deecee (Post 991265)

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.

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 991281)

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

Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 991282)

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

Originally Posted by Shooter14 (Post 991275)

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

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 991292)

Thanx for your clarification on Adam's preference.

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?

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."

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?

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?

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 991465)

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

Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 991931)

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

Originally Posted by Shooter14 (Post 991937)

So.....what is the answer? Ha!

Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 991939)

But, here's the deal. The new rule has left out the word legally, so it seems that with the new rule language, and the test question, maybe they overlooked the case play, and actually did intend it to be the way the question is asking.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 991933)

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.

Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 991941)

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 is a violation Team A gets a throw in for the violation, however since the word legally has been removed, the arrow should be switched at the time of the touching by B. So the arrow will stay with B. The above situation actually says that, it just doesn't say who has the arrow.

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 991943)

???
"Because the defensive team committed a violation during the alternating-possession throwin, the alternating-possession arrow is not switched."

Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 991945)

When the rule had the word legally in it, I would agree. Maybe the powers that be, don't realize that the case play and rule are different. Who knows!!! Probably be 2 years before it is clarified.

Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 991941)

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.

Originally Posted by Shooter14 (Post 991965)

So does the interp say to not switch it?

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 991933)

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.

Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 991962)

This is not, according to 6-4-5, correct. Though the word "legally" has been removed from 4-42-5a, all the provisions stated in 6-4-5 are still valid:
"The opportunity to make an AP throw-in is lost if the throw-in team violates. If either team fouls during an AP throw-in, it does not cause the throw-in team to lose the possession arrow. If the defensive team commits a violation during the throw-in, the possession arrow is not switched.

Therefore, the removal of the word "legally" in 4-42-5a is a moot point because of what it says in 6-4-5. Right?

Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 991970)

Rule 6-4-4....the direction of the possession arrow is reversed immediately after an alternating-possession throw in ends. An alternating-possession throw in ends when the throw in ends as in 4-42-5

Rule 6-4-5 ......if the defensive team commits a violation during the throw in, the possession arrow is not changed not switched

Rule 4-42-5...The throw in ends when
a. The passed ball touches or is touched by another player

6-4-4 is clear, the arrow is switched according to 4-42-5, the word legally has been removed, therefore, when the ball is touched legally, or illegally, the throw in has ended, therefore the arrow switches at that time. The kicked ball isn't part of the throw in as the throw in ended when it was touched inbounds. The kick is a touch which ended the throw in, it just happens to be that that touch is illegal. Team A will get a throw in for the illegal act of the kick, but since the throw in was touched, the throw in ends and the arrow should be switched.

Throw in starts when the ball is at the disposal of a player entitled to it---and ends when it touches or is touched by another player inbounds. The kick didn't happen during the throw in, it happened after.

Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 991971)

Whereas I appreciate your well-reasoned, logical argument, and even agree with it in principle, in view of the recently released interpretation Situation 11, and since the training/teaching preseason has already begun, it looks like we're going with the interp and with 6-4-5. Arrow doesn't change when defense violates, only when throw-in team does so.

Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 991972)

It's another self imposed mess by the NFHS

Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 991972)

No, I get it. It's another self imposed mess by the NFHS