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.