Kick Ball on AP Throw-in

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Snaqwells
Sure, in which case he's rewarded with what? Another shot at guarding a throw in. Why should the penalty be doubled because it's after an AP sitch?

The penalty isn't doubled, if the arrow isn't changed. They don't get the arrow taken away from them. If A inbounds the ball legally, even if B gets the ball legally, A has then used the arrow, and B gets the arrow.

What happens if B kicks the ball on the inbounds is that A gets penalized. Not because A made a bad basketball play, but because B violated. Why am I the only one that thinks that's unfair?

It's an exact parallel to losing or keeping the privilege of running the baseline. If B kicks the ball on the inbounds pass after a made basket, A gets that privilege back. How is keeping the arrow any different?

[Adam]

Originally posted by rainmaker

The penalty isn't doubled, if the arrow isn't changed. They don't get the arrow taken away from them. If A inbounds the ball legally, even if B gets the ball legally, A has then used the arrow, and B gets the arrow.

What happens if B kicks the ball on the inbounds is that A gets penalized. Not because A made a bad basketball play, but because B violated. Why am I the only one that thinks that's unfair?

It's an exact parallel to losing or keeping the privilege of running the baseline. If B kicks the ball on the inbounds pass after a made basket, A gets that privilege back. How is keeping the arrow any different?

How does A get penalized? They've still got the ball. They would never have had it without the arrow. They haven't lost the arrow, they've already used it.
With the baseline, the new rule makes sure that A doesn't actually lose anything due to B's violation. With a kick after an AP, A doesn't lose a thing. They've still got the ball, and they got it due to the arrow.

Adam

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Snaqwells

How does A get penalized? They've still got the ball. They would never have had it without the arrow. They haven't lost the arrow, they've already used it.
With the baseline, the new rule makes sure that A doesn't actually lose anything due to B's violation. With a kick after an AP, A doesn't lose a thing. They've still got the ball, and they got it due to the arrow.

Adam

In any other situation with an AP throw-in, they haven't used the arrow until the ball is legally inbounded. In this case the ball has not been legally inbounded, through no fault of their own, yet they lose the arrow. Which IS the same as the privilege of running the baseline. They don't lose the privilege because the opponent violates. If they lose the arrow on the kick, they are penalized for what THE OPPONENT did. They haven't used the arrow, they've had it taken away.

[williebfree]

R 6-3-5 . . . The opportunity to make an alternating-possession throw-in is lost if the throw-in team violates. If either team fouls during an alternating-possession throw-in, it does not cause the throw-in team to lose the possesion arrow.
=====================

In response to the original situation, call the kicking violation on the first (And only AP throw-in attempt).

By rule, R 4-41-5, the AP throw-in ends when AN inbounds player (other than the thrower) touches it.

Therefore, the AP switches AFTER THE FIRST throw-in attempt was completed, when kicked by B1.

Now, administer the second throw-in (as the result of the kicking violation).

What has happened? Team A has ultimately been allowed to make the throw-in which it was entitled to AND Team B now has the arrow.

Can it be any more simple (or dificult) than this?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by williebfree
R 6-3-5 . . . The opportunity to make an alternating-possession throw-in is lost if the throw-in team violates. If either team fouls during an alternating-possession throw-in, it does not cause the throw-in team to lose the possesion arrow.
=====================

In response to the original situation, call the kicking violation on the first (And only AP throw-in attempt).

By rule, R 4-41-5, the AP throw-in ends when AN inbounds player (other than the thrower) touches it.

Therefore, the AP switches AFTER THE FIRST throw-in attempt was completed, when kicked by B1.

Now, administer the second throw-in (as the result of the kicking violation).

What has happened? Team A has ultimately been allowed to make the throw-in which it was entitled to AND Team B now has the arrow.

Can it be any more simple (or dificult) than this?

Yes, it can be more difficult that that. What if B fouls before the second throw-in is completed? Now, A has lost a distinct advantage, not because they did anything wrong (B violated, AND fouled) but because of B being very naughty indeed. Can't make it add up no matter how hard I try.

[JugglingReferee]

willie,

We know what the rule is. We all get the rulebooks, the interps, etc... and I'm sure other places are like my local board where you meet regularily and discuss philosophy, etc.

If this situation should come up in a game that I'm reffing, please know that I'm going to call it according to the rule. I've never said that I wouldn't. I'm sure everybody else here knows the rule as well, as will call it as such.

However, I do not agree with the rule. It's just my opinion. You may not agree with my opinion and that's fine.

I completely understand what Juulie is saying and I agree with her.

Juulie brings up an excellent point about B fouling on the next throw-in, which was A's b/c of the kick. Say B is down by 4 with 20 seconds to go and B coach has decided their strategy is to put A on the stripe. By fouling during a live ball with the clock stopped, B's used the best strategy possible. Ref hands A the ball due to the kick, then B fouls. (Say B2 holds A3 doing a V-cut to the ball.) Live ball foul. No time comes off the clock and A goes to shoot 1-and-1. B completely gets what they want: A at the line, no time off the clock, and they steal the arrow.

Wow. Kinda neat.

[Adam]

Originally posted by rainmaker

In any other situation with an AP throw-in, they haven't used the arrow until the ball is legally inbounded. In this case the ball has not been legally inbounded, through no fault of their own, yet they lose the arrow. Which IS the same as the privilege of running the baseline. They don't lose the privilege because the opponent violates. If they lose the arrow on the kick, they are penalized for what THE OPPONENT did. They haven't used the arrow, they've had it taken away.

What is the benefit of the arrow? Getting the ball. A actually gets the benefit of the arrow by getting the ball for the throw in. Logically, it seems to me that the arrow should change as soon as the ball is handed to the player. The only benefit of waiting is that if B fouls, then A keeps the ball and the arrow. Frankly, I'm not sure I even agree with that.
If B fouls during a throwing resulting from an AP, then that foul is a direct result of the throw in; therefore A has already benefited from the AP arrow. B now has a double whammy of losing their arrow on top of the foul. I'd even argue that it's an excessive punishment based on the timing of a foul.
All activity during a throwin, fouls and violations included, is a direct result of the AP arrow.

Adam

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Snaqwells
What is the benefit of the arrow? Getting the ball. A actually gets the benefit of the arrow by getting the ball for the throw in. Logically, it seems to me that the arrow should change as soon as the ball is handed to the player.

I'd be fine with this, if it changed that way for all AP throw-ins. Then I would agree with you completely. So, if a foul by B isn't going to change the arrow, why should a violation by B change the arrow?

I think part of the reason the arrow doesn't change immediately, is that what A gains with the arrow isn't the ball, remember that there is no team control on the throw-in. What they have gained with the arrow is the OPPORTUNITY to possess the ball. That OPPORTUNITY is taken away in the B-violates-and-then-fouls scenario, not because of A's actions. It is taken away from A who did nothing wrong, and given to B who did two things wrong. Hmmm....

[Edited by rainmaker on Jan 8th, 2004 at 11:08 PM]

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee

I think if one violates before possession is gained, then we should penalize the violation, which is the kick. (That's what we do for A right - penalize the violation ono a throw-in.)

I hope the Fed reads this...

I hope I made sense.

I think in this case, doing as you suggest would actually penalize B for A's bad throw. Had A1 passed the ball to a teammate, we wouldn't have this problem.

[Adam]

Originally posted by rainmaker
I'd be fine with this, if it changed that way for all AP throw-ins. Then I would agree with you completely. But if a foul by B doesn't change the arrow, why should a violation by B change the arrow?

Actually, I look at it differently. The foul does change the arrow. In my view, a foul on B during the throwin costs them the next arrow.
In Iowa girls ball, the arrow changes as soon as the ball is handed to the inbounder. The only practical difference is when there's a foul by B during the throw in. In boys, B loses the next arrow. Girls recognize that all the action is a result of the throw in, which is a result of the AP arrow. Once the player gets the ball for the throw in, the AP arrow has served its purpose.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by rainmaker

In any other situation with an AP throw-in, they haven't used the arrow until the ball is legally inbounded. In this case [kicked ball] the ball has not been legally inbounded, through no fault of their own, yet they lose the arrow.

Juulie - under NF rules, though, the ball has been legally inbounded.

4-41-5

The throw-in ends when the passed ball touches, or is touched by, an inbounds player other than the thrower

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Why am I the only one that thinks that's unfair?

Juulie, I think the best way to look at this is as two separate actions. Once the ball is grazed by a player on the court, the throw-in is over. We don't know what's going to happen after that. If we were to go by not resetting the arrow, then what happens when B intercepts and travels or B intercepts and commits a foul? There would have to be a case made that A should get the arrow back.

Also, along the line of separate actions, I tend to think that (because a kick must be intentional) the determination of a kick must come after the initial contact. As such, they are two separate entities.

[williebfree]

Originally posted by rainmaker
... But if a foul by B doesn't change the arrow, why should a violation by B change the arrow? [/B]

With a foul, A1 has not made a Throw-in...

No opportunity to inbound ball has been afforded to Team A.

With kicking violation, the ball has been released (lacking enough accuracy to allow a teammate to gain possession) by the thrower and touched by an inbound player (albiet, B1's foot).

An opportunity to inbound ball has been afforded to Team A.


Juggling Ref Not a problem with differing opinions, makes for healthy discussions.

[rainmaker]

It seems apparent to me that we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this. That's fine, I guess. I've had lots of spare time today to obsess about this, but it's not that big a deal, really. I have re-written my little internal trigger so that A loses the arrow when B violates. It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to happen. I promise not to mention it in the future.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Why am I the only one that thinks that's unfair?

As Mrs. Tillman, my 11th grade English teacher used to ask, "Who said life was fair?"

Try this play:

B 56, A 55. 1.0 remaining to be played.

A inbounds the ball.

B kicks the ball.

Official starts clock,

Official blows whistle for violation.

Time expires before timer can stop clock.

Game over.
__________________________________________________ ____

Did B gain an advantage by kicking the ball? Yes.

Is there anything we can do about it? No.

"Who said life was fair?"