Kick Ball on AP Throw-in

[JugglingReferee]

Originally posted by rainmaker

RIght, that's my point. Normally, violations should be avoided, since they bring a penalty, but in this case, there's no penalty, it's good strategy. Why is that reasonable?

Last year (or maybe 2 yrs ago) a jumper would lose possession and the arrow upon catching a tipped ball. This year, they just lose possession. The discussion was always what came first. Can you violate in this case with gaining possession? Yada yada yada...

Perhaps what Juulie is saying is that (correct me if I am wrong Juulie) is that B violating by kicking the ball brings them an advantage. What comes first - that violation or the ending of the throw-in.

B wants to end the throw-in because it is at that point, that they are guaranteed the next arrow. B cannot really do anything to cause A to violate on the throw-in. (What are they going to do - /pray/ that A steps inbounds? B could play good defense to cause a 5 second count - but B's good defense caused A to lose the arrow.) So, they would prefer, statistically, to end the throw-in (since the majority of arrow sitch's are ended by a throw-in, and not by A violating).

How was a throw-in end? When the ball in touched inbounds. Ok, great. So now B kicks the ball. Throw-in ends, A gets the ball back from the kick, so now B gets the next arrow and we're no further ahead.

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.

[BktBallRef]

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.)

We do penalize the violation. A gets the ball for a throw-in.

The arrow changes if the throw-in ends or A violates, correct? But if A fouls before the throw-in ends, they keep the arrow.

Using your prinicple that isn't fair to B. It's not their fault A fouled. Why should A get to keep the arrow?

[Adam]

A kick doesn't really get penalized anyway. Think about it this way, if A is taking the ball out after a foul, and B kicks the ball on the throw in, we just restart the throw in. Why should the kick be penalized more just because of the reason for the throw in?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

We do penalize the violation. A gets the ball for a throw-in.

The arrow changes if the throw-in ends or A violates, correct? But if A fouls before the throw-in ends, they keep the arrow.

Using your prinicple that isn't fair to B. It's not their fault A fouled. Why should A get to keep the arrow?

I think what bothers me is that for A to get the ball for a throw-in doesn't seem like much of a penalty, when they already have the ball anyway, and there is the offsetting advantage for B of receiving the arrow. Why not redefine the throw-in to end when the ball is LEGALLY touched in-bounds, and then as with running the end-line, the offense wouldn't be penalized for B's violation.

[Adam]

Originally posted by rainmaker
I think what bothers me is that for A to get the ball for a throw-in doesn't seem like much of a penalty, when they already have the ball anyway, and there is the offsetting advantage for B of receiving the arrow. Why not redefine the throw-in to end when the ball is LEGALLY touched in-bounds, and then as with running the end-line, the offense wouldn't be penalized for B's violation.

Juulie,
Why should a kick here be more penalized than if it happens after an out of bounds violation? Or if the kick happens while the clock is running? As far as I'm concerned, the arrow should switch when A1 is handed the ball, since everything after that happens as a result of the throw in.

Adam

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Why not redefine the throw-in to end when the ball is LEGALLY touched in-bounds, and then as with running the end-line, the offense wouldn't be penalized for B's violation.

Why? On the next throw-in, when A does complete the throw-in, B's gonna get the arrow anyway.

I don't see how A is being penalized.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

We do penalize the violation. A gets the ball for a throw-in.

The arrow changes if the throw-in ends or A violates, correct? But if A fouls before the throw-in ends, they keep the arrow.

Using your prinicple that isn't fair to B. It's not their fault A fouled. Why should A get to keep the arrow?

I play men's league tonight.

If I can't intercept an AP throw-in pass, I'm going to intentionally kick the ball. Why? Because A gets the ball back (what's the difference between me not kicking the ball and allowing them inbounds possession, /and/ giving them another throw-in?) plus loses the arrow because I was not quick enough to intecept the pass or am too lazy to even try. Either way, my team benefits the next time there is a held ball.

I always thought that the AP was to alternate rewarding the ball because of two players hustling to obtain control of the ball, not rewarding me the next arrow because I'm a lazy bum and will kick it just because.

[Edited by JugglingReferee on Jan 8th, 2004 at 03:49 PM]

[Adam]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee
I play men's league tonight.

If I can't intercept an AP throw-in pass, I'm going to intentionally kick the ball. Why? Because A gets the ball back (what's the difference between me not kicking the ball and allowing them inbounds possession, /and/ giving them another throw-in?) plus loses the arrow because I was not quick enough to intecept the pass or am too lazy to even try. Either way, my team benefits the next time there is a held ball.

I always thought that the AP was to alternate rewarding the ball because of two players hustling to obtain control of the ball, not rewarding me the next arrow because I'm a lazy bum and will kick it just because.

[Edited by JugglingReferee on Jan 8th, 2004 at 03:49 PM]

Juggling ref:
The arrow is what gives A the ball to begin with. They aren't losing the ball, so by kicking the ball you only prolong the agony. Seriously, A isn't disadvantaged at all if you kick the ball, so why should B be punished? The question I need to have answered here is simple. Why should a kick on an AP throw in be more penalized than any other kick during the game?

Adam

[smoref]

Juggling:

I think you are missing the point. How is team B benifiting from kicking the ball on the throw in.

It would be the same if B tipped the ball OOB and then on the throw in he kicked it. Team A would just throw the ball in again.

I think you need to think about a violation is different the a foul. If you kick the ball on an AP throw in team A still gets the throw in. You are not rewarding Team B anything.

[Edited by smoref on Jan 8th, 2004 at 04:08 PM]

[rainmaker]

I can see the point of not punishing the defense on a kick differently when the arrow is involved.

But what about punishing the offense when it was the defense that violated? If A violates on their own AP throw-in, it makes sense that they should lose the arrow, but if B violates it makes no sense at all to give the arrow to B. If B violates on a regular throw-in by kicking, there is basically a do-over. Why not the same priniciple when the arrow is involved?

After all, on that re-set, A may not need to use the arrow, for instance if B fouls, or even if A fouls. Then they have kept the arrow for future use. If you switch it on the violation, you have taken away the choice that should be rightfully A's about when to give up the arrow.

[Adam]

Originally posted by rainmaker

After all, on that re-set, A may not need to use the arrow, for instance if B fouls, or even if A fouls. Then they have kept the arrow for future use. If you switch it on the violation, you have taken away the choice that should be rightfully A's about when to give up the arrow.

But none of that happens without the throw in that resulted from the arrow. A doesn't have a choice when to give up the arrow. It switches after they get the ball. They get the ball when it becomes live (upon handing it to A1.) I don't understand what is taken away from A when B kicks the ball. A gets the ball back, and they wouldn't have had it to begin with without the arrow.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Let's not forget that A is a participant also and that team A attempted a throw-in to a location where team B could kick the ball. This isn't a good throw-in effort on the part of team A.

If you feel it is unjustified that Team A looses the next AP (that was going to be Team B's if the throw-in was good), think of it in that light... team A used their AP to make a poor throw-in effort but luckily got the ball back because JugglingRef was waggling a foot in the flight path.

[JugglingReferee]

I'm just saying that the potential exists that B could kick the ball when he has no obvious chance to make a bonified attempt at rewardable defense.

[BktBallRef]

Well, the good news is that the rule says the arrow changes, and the rule probably won't be.

[Adam]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee
I'm just saying that the potential exists that B could kick the ball when he has no obvious chance to make a bonified attempt at rewardable defense.

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? If you take the arrow away from B, that's what you're doing. You're making them skip the next arrow because he kicked an inbounds pass he couldn't get his hands to.
On a normal throw in, you just give the ball back to A when B kicks it. In normal play, you give A a throw in when B kicks it. In this situation, B is rewarded slightly for kicking, in that they have knocked A out of their offensive rythm. Why should this be worse for B.
Kicking in basketball is not the egregious offense that hitting the ball with your hand is in soccer.

Adam