AP throw-in followed by non AP throw-in

[Eric]

Just curious to see how many officials knew about and/or would enforce this rule.

This case play was found in the rules by topic book.

Team A has the ball for an alternating-possession throw-in. During the throw-in, team B kicks the ball. Violation, arrow is still pointing toward team A since the ball was never legally touched inbounds. Team A has the ball out of bounds again, except this time it’s a non alternating-possession throw-in, which means after the ball is legally touched inbounds the arrow does not get switched. So team A will get the next held ball, thus what appears as 2 AP possessions in a row for the same team.

Has anyone ever enforced it in this manner? Any arguments with coach or table staff?

First time poster, regular observer.

Thank you.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eric

Just curious to see how many officials knew about and/or would enforce this rule.



This case play was found in the rules by topic book.



Team A has the ball for an alternating-possession throw-in. During the throw-in, team B kicks the ball. Violation, arrow is still pointing toward team A since the ball was never legally touched inbounds. Team A has the ball out of bounds again, except this time it’s a non alternating-possession throw-in, which means after the ball is legally touched inbounds the arrow does not get switched. So team A will get the next held ball, thus what appears as 2 AP possessions in a row for the same team.



Has anyone ever enforced it in this manner? Any arguments with coach or table staff?



First time poster, regular observer.



Thank you.

Yes I have and never had a problem explaining it. Didn't worry about whether or not the coaches liked it

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Nevadaref]

The same thing happens when the defense commits a foul prior to the end of an AP throw-in.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Eric

Just curious to see how many officials knew about and/or would enforce this rule. Team A has the ball for an alternating-possession throw-in. During the throw-in, team B kicks the ball. Violation, arrow is still pointing toward team A since the ball was never legally touched inbounds. Team A has the ball out of bounds again, except this time it’s a non alternating-possession throw-in, which means after the ball is legally touched inbounds the arrow does not get switched. Has anyone ever enforced it in this manner? Any arguments with coach or table staff?

Why wouldn't we enforce it?

I'm sure that most of us were aware of this interpretation, this is one of those case plays that interpret a very specific but rare situation and could be considered "classic", and received a lot of attention when it was first published. I believe that previous to this "new" interpretation, the old interpretation was the opposite, the touch, even though it was an illegal touch, during the kick was considered to have ended the throwin, thus allowed the alternating possession arrow to be switched.

I actually had this play once, in a prep school freshman game, where my partner was brand new. I had ruled the old way, he came over to me and reminded me about the brand new interpretation (he was brand new, so it was the only interpretation he knew of), so I changed my call.

Coach asked us a polite question, and I explained that it was a new interpretation, and we moved on. While coaches are more than willing to argue about subjective calls, they seldom want to argue about stuff "deep in the weeds".

The situation reminds me of another "classic" reversal, another interpretation of a very specific but rare situation when a jumper illegally catches the jump ball (not an illegal touch on the way up (different interpretation), but an illegal catch). In ancient times, this was considered a possession, an illegal possession, but still a possession, so the offending team lost the ball and lost the alternating possession arrow. Now the interpretation is different, the offending team loses the ball but gets the alternating possession arrow.

I have often stated that learning the rules is the easy part, but for veteran officials, the stumbling blocks are the rule changes, and the longer one officiates (for example, Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.), the more changes (or reversals) accumulate, and the more difficult for one to remember the rule.

There is a limited amount of space in veteran's dinosaur-like, walnut-sized brain.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

…

I have often stated that learning the rules is the easy part, but for veteran officials, the stumbling blocks are the rule changes, and the longer one officiates (for example, Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.), the more changes (or reversals) accumulate, and the more difficult for one to remember the rule. There is a limited amount of space in veteran's dinosaur-like, walnut-sized brain.

Which why I always avoid conversations about what rule used to be or what a rule should be. I focus only on what it is so that I or the crew do not get confused with irrelevant information. And I most definitely don't want newer officials getting bombarded with discussions about old rules that do not apply.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Which why I always avoid conversations about what rule used to be or what a rule should be. I focus only on what it is so that I or the crew do not get confused with irrelevant information. And I most definitely don't want newer officials getting bombarded with discussions about old rules that do not apply.

I can certainly understand that well thought out point, especially the last sentence.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... he was brand new, so it was the only interpretation he knew of ...

I wish that I had a delete button for some of the stuff in my brain, but unfortunately I don't.

As a retired thirty-plus year middle school science teacher, I know that different people have different learning, and memorizing, styles.

For me, I need to understand something in its entirety to successfully memorize it. I'm also a visual and kinesthetic/tactile learner.

My girlfriend and I used to study together while in college. She would memorize information for a test, not really understanding what she was memorizing, and she would do so by verbally repeating (she was an auditory learner, drove me crazy) said information. How successful was she? Summa Cum Laude.

I would only (and still today) be able to memorize information if I understand it in its entirety. Why? How? Reason? As a visual/kinesthetic/tactile learner, I wouldn't verbalize information to be memorized, I would rewrite the information in the margins of my notebooks, or textbooks.

Same with basketball rules and rule changes. Why the rule? Why the change? History of the rule and any changes over the years? And every time I type and post something on the Forum it's a way that I can better learn a rule or an interpretation.

May not work for anybody else (certainly not for my girlfriend, who would become my ex-wife), but it works for me.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Why wouldn't we enforce it?

I'm sure that most of us were aware of this interpretation, this is one of those case plays that interpret a very specific but rare situation and could be considered "classic", and received a lot of attention when it was first published. I believe that previous to this "new" interpretation, the old interpretation was the opposite, the touch, even though it was an illegal touch, during the kick was considered to have ended the throwin, thus allowed the alternating possession arrow to be switched.

I actually had this play once, in a prep school freshman game, where my partner was brand new. I had ruled the old way, he came over to me and reminded me about the brand new interpretation (he was brand new, so it was the only interpretation he knew of), so I changed my call.

Coach asked us a polite question, and I explained that it was a new interpretation, and we moved on. While coaches are more than willing to argue about subjective calls, they seldom want to argue about stuff "deep in the weeds".

The situation reminds me of another "classic" reversal, another interpretation of a very specific but rare situation when a jumper illegally catches the jump ball (not an illegal touch on the way up (different interpretation), but an illegal catch). In ancient times, this was considered a possession, an illegal possession, but still a possession, so the offending team lost the ball and lost the alternating possession arrow. Now the interpretation is different, the offending team loses the ball but gets the alternating possession arrow.

I have often stated that learning the rules is the easy part, but for veteran officials, the stumbling blocks are the rule changes, and the longer one officiates (for example, Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.), the more changes (or reversals) accumulate, and the more difficult for one to remember the rule.

There is a limited amount of space in veteran's dinosaur-like, walnut-sized brain.

I resemble that remark! LOL!

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Which why I always avoid conversations about what rule used to be or what a rule should be. I focus only on what it is so that I or the crew do not get confused with irrelevant information. And I most definitely don't want newer officials getting bombarded with discussions about old rules that do not apply.

I agree with you to a point. Rules do not exist in a vacuum. It is important to understand the reason in which a Rule was written and understand the history of the Rule especially when it was originally written as A, then it was rewritten as B, and then it was rewritten as C (which is really A).

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

… it was originally written as A, then it was rewritten as B, and then it was rewritten as C (which is really A)

Perfect example, excessively swinging elbows with no contact (violation, to a technical foul, back to a violation).

[Altor]

Sometimes it's helpful when you have a coach or other official that says "that's not the rule. The rule is this..." Then you can say, that was the rule until about 5 years ago.

I feel the same way with NFHS/NCAA differences. Don't dwell on NCAA rules if you are in a NFHS rules discussion, but sometimes it's helpful to know the difference so you can tell somebody that they are thinking of the wrong rulebook.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Altor

Sometimes it's helpful when you have a coach or other official that says "that's not the rule. The rule is this..." Then you can say, that was the rule until about 5 years ago.



I feel the same way with NFHS/NCAA differences. Don't dwell on NCAA rules if you are in a NFHS rules discussion, but sometimes it's helpful to know the difference so you can tell somebody that they are thinking of the wrong rulebook.

This. All due respect to Raymond whose wisdom I have studied and applied many times, but in this case count me in the BillyMac/Altor camp. I believe in the power of history as a tool in my tool belt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

TI believe in the power of history as a tool in my tool belt.

It lets the coach be partially correct, just not current. I've found that is often accepted when used and effectively resolves the conflict more than not.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Perfect example, excessively swinging elbows with no contact (violation, to a technical foul, back to a violation).

Another example is: Entering the FT Lane during FTAs: When I started officiating Players had to wait until the Ball hit the Ring or Backboard, it then changed to on the Release of the Ball by the FT Shooter, and than back to waiting until the Ball hit the Ring or Backboard.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. My above comment was made at 02:43amEST on my phone. I was awake because at my age men tend to wake up in the middle of the night to use the "head". I was "sleep typing" and was confused. This is why Mark, Jr., and Andy believe that I should not be allowed to have a smart phone. Therefore, do not pay attention to the man behind the screen nor to what I said in my above comment.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Another example is: Entering the FT Lane during FTAs: When I started officiating Players had to wait until the Ball hit the Ring or Backboard, it then changed to on the Release of the Ball by the FT Shooter, and than back to waiting until the Ball hit the Ring or Backboard.

MTD, Sr.

Huh?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

This. All due respect to Raymond whose wisdom I have studied and applied many times, but in this case count me in the BillyMac/Altor camp. I believe in the power of history as a tool in my tool belt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"That may have been the rule at one time, but it is not currently".

You can use that line whether you know the history of the rule or not. You can even use it if the coach is wrong about it being a rule at one time.