I know this was discussed here back in December but I have been unable to find the thread. So here goes...

Team A is awarded a throw-in using the AP procedure. During the throw-in, Player A1 legally throws a bounce pass in-bounds. The ball is kicked by Player B2 in an effort to block the throw-in. The covering official blows their whistle and calls the violation on Team B for kicking.

In the above situation, would the AP arrow switch to Team B after the next throw-in is completed? Or, is the subsequent throw-in not an AP arrow throw-in due to the kicking violation by Team B? Thanks again, everyone.

R 6-3-5
 

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.

Call the violation and administer the "replacement" throw-in. AP switches after the throw-in is completed (or if throw-in team violates).

The AP throw-in ends and the arrow is changed when B touches the ball, with a kick in this case.

A then gets the ball for a throw-in because of the kick. The AP thropw-in has ended.

Tony -- been out in the snow too long? I'm almost certain this is wrong. Arrow doesn't switch when defense violates. Does it?

You're thinking of the exception that would allow A to still run the baseline -- and that obviouls doesn't happen on a held ball.

B1 scores a successful try. A1 takes the ball OOB for a throw-in. A1 inadvertantly holds the ball across the OOB plane so that B1 is able to hold the ball on the inbounds side of the plane. Neither player is able to secure sole control without undue force. The arrow points toward Team A's basket.

Will A1 be allowed to run the endline in this case? The original throw-in did not end. . .

No, that's not what I'm thinking of. But now that I plow through the books, I can't find what I WAS thinking about. I'm still pretty sure I'm right, but it happens so seldom that I never feel 100% sure. I"ll have to get back to you later, after I remember where that little quote was that's floating around in my mind.

Okay, well, I guess my memory was flawed. I can't find what I thought was there. I will now reverse the arrow even when the defense violates on the in-bounds pass.

But this brings up another question -- why is this fair?!? Defense violates and they get rewarded with the arrow!?!?

I don't have any snow. You do. Therefore.... :)

The AP throw in ends when B kicks the ball.

The arrow is changed when the throw-in ends.

Now, A gets the ball because B kicked it.

The throw-in is made.

They just simply touched the ball first, which ended the throw-in.

There going to get the arrow anyway, unless a foul occurs before the throw-in ends.

So B should be trying hard to kick it, instead of trying to avoid the violation. Seems kinda backwards...

What's the purpose of avoidng the violation?

If the defender can deflect the pass, by any means, it's good defense.

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?

Unless there's a shot clock there's no penalty for kicking at any point, unless you count stopping the clock as a penalty. No?

Slightly confused.... I think
 

So Juulie,

you would want Team A to keep the AP arrow and keep the current throw-in opportunity due to the kick? That wouldn't be reasonable would it?

The only time the AP arrow should be kept is when there is a foul committed during the throw-in, before the the throw-in is completed. Penalize the foul and the AP stays because the throw-in was never completed.

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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

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]

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.

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.

My head is starting to spin
 

http://mindscraps.com/s/contrib/blackeye/Eyecrazy.gif

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

Let's try this again!
 

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?

Re: Let's try this again!
 

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.

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.

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

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]

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.

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.

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

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.

There is a difference
 

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.

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.

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?" :)

I don't know how I missed this thread, but post #3 on page one (the one above) is the one with the right answer, all based on the definitions.

The arrow is changed when the throw-in ends. The throw-in ends when the ball is touched on the floor. The kick is that touch on the floor. Change the arrow to B. Award a throw-in (because of the kick) to A.

No unfair advantage given -- the throw-in is no longer an AP throw-in so after A completes the throw in the arrow will still be set to B, just like on a "normal" AP throw-in.

Not legally inbounded but when the throw-in ends, as per 6-3.

A simple way to clarify this rule is to add the word
LEGALLY.

The throw in ends when the ball is "LEGALLY" touched inbounds.

Or the clock cannot start until the ball is "LEGALLY" touched. (takes care of BBallref's scenario)

Juules,

I had a problem with this rule at first as well.
But I have reconciled in my mind (scary) that B really does not gain an advantage by kicking the ball.

A still gets the opportunity to throw the ball in due to the kick,(already stated by someone else) and they would lose the arrow anyway after a completed throw in.

I do see how your fouling scenario could yield a "possible" advantage by stealing the arrow, but is it truly an advantage? If the most they gain is posession of the arrow, that's a small reward to say the least. The game may, (most likely would) conclude without B using the AP arrow that they "stole".
Just my two cents.

But...it doesn't say that. :p

But I agree that, considering the present "run the endline" rule, they should have just re-worded all rules that pertain to "legally" inbounding the ball.

But...until they do. ;)

I don't think this is a valid blanket statement. A's (bounce?) pass could have been the perfect pass for that sitch - we can't penalize A for what /we/ think is a bad pass.

All the more reason everybody should use Precision Time. (tm)


LOL

Why did you let B56 into the game?

Score, B 56, A 55

Been eatin' too much green eggs and ham, SamIAm. :)

Thanks a lot Juules.

I get up this morning, look out the window.

It's snowing.

And it's you're fault! :D

It doesn't snow here.

Sorry, Tony. I forgot to warn you that my spiritual gift is prophecy...

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/pope.gif

Then, from hence forth, I decree that you will be forever known as...

...snowmaker, the white wizard!

http://www.gifs.net/animate/achilly7.gif

Hmmmm, somebody been to the movies recently? :)

Best movie I've seen in quite a while
 

I would think that there could be some "hobbitses" in your ancestry. :p

Where did you find that flattering picture? I'm not nearly that attractive.

BBallref,

My point was that The NF, SHOULD make that simple clarification.

I understood your point.

I thought I agreed.

I just thought you were taller and slimmer! This guy doesn't run very well, unless you consider melting, running. ;)

Think of it this way. The possesion arrow was switched to b
when the ball was touched. The next throw in for a is because of the kick violation.

Maybe I am oversimplifying things here, but I look at a kick by the defensive team the same as a tip in which the defensive player has no chance to catch the ball.

In the sitch wth 1 second left, defense up by one, the defender SHOULD do anything he can to touch the ball. This could be a kick, a slap, or a tip, or even an all-out dive to knock the ball OOB. That's good defense, because the clock will likely run out. Yes, it's a violation, and the penalty is that the offensive team gets the ball, possibly with some time elapsed. If the offense does not want to be "disadvantaged" by having to make another throw-in, they should simply make an excellent throw-in that cannot be touched by the defense.

Julie, I always look at any defensive violation (besides BI/GT) this way: The defense tried to improve it's situation (by getting the ball!), but failed to do so legally. So we put things back just as the were before the violation. Offense gets the ball back, no one gains or loses.

In contrast, being the offensive team carries with it the RIGHT to score (duh) and the RESPONSIBILITY to avoid violations.

Does that make any sense?

I understand your point of view. It's just not mine. It doesn't look to me as though things have gone back to the way they were since A no longer has the arrow. But obviously, the rules committee sees it from your perspective, not mine. Now when it's MY turn to be God...

Reminds me of a book spoof I saw way, way back in the 70's called The Joy of Non-Running. There's a picture in there of a guy sort of draped over a chair, sitting next to a table with a brie cheese. The caption is something to the effect that the cheese was ahead in the non-running contest, until the weather heated up and the cheese melted (and thus ran) all over the table. Actually, it's not a bad description of how I spend a lot of my days.

Huh. "The white wizard" and "Bree" mentioned in the same thread. Ever hang out at the Prancing Pony, Juulie? :)

Shucks! No response to the "hobbitses" comment. :(

I bet Juules doesn't know where the Bree or the Prancing Pony is. ;)

I'm bigger than that :D

Bigger than that as in "Gimli." :D

It's been a long, long time.

Actually, Bree is also a character in a C.S.Lewis book which I dearly love, "The Horse and His Boy". Suppose Tolkien and Lewis collaborated on names?

Julie,
As you probably know they were very good friends and met with a couple of others every week to talk about their writings and ideas. C. S. Lewis stated that some of his ideas came from those discuaiions whereas Tolkein brought his ideas to the group and then improved them. Have you read C.S.Lewis non=fiction? I highly reccommend them.
To show my age I remember when LOTR first hit the U.S. and being a member of the TSA (Tolkein Society of America) with Dick Plotz as the first president.
So much for nostalgia and old age, Back to officiating....Where were we anyway????