Foul on AP throw in

[Adam]

Originally posted by rockyroad

So A has the arrow, you hand them the ball, and have the arrow switched, then B4 grabs A4 and throws him/her to the floor before the ball is thrown-in...you properly call the foul but A never gets their throw-in??? And you like that idea???

Very much. This foul is a direct result of the throw in, which is a result of the arrow. To me, the arrow should grant the right to have a throw in, not the right to a successful throwin.
Currently, I see the situation you set up above as unfairly penalizing a foul based on when it occurs.
Now, let's say A is throwing the ball in following an OOB violation and B1 fouls A2. Do we somehow preserve this throwin for later use? No. Yet many people think we should grant another throwin to the offended team if a defensive foul occurs following a held ball situation.
The way I see it, the defense is doubly penalized for a foul when it occurs during an AP throwin.

[Adam]

Originally posted by Art N
Right On Rocky! That's a good example of WHY we don't have the arrow changed when the ball is handed to the thrower. Here's another....I was doing the books for my sons HS team a few years ago and Team A had a violation on the initial second half AP throw in (after they were handed the ball!). The home team's , team A, clock operator left the arrow with A! We had no more jump balls the entire half.
With 5 seconds left and losing by one point there was an AP situation. Team A was "awarded" the ball under their basket. They called a timeout to set up ther final play.(FYI...I could not see the AP arrow from my seat, since it was facing the floor). I called over the two officials and confirmed that we had no other jump balls and that A violated on their initial throw in at the half. They corrected it and of course Team A was upset. It sealed the win for my sons team. DO I GET AN ASSIST ON THAT ONE? lol

Uhm, Art. Your situation would not change under my proposal. The arrow would have switched to B when A got the ball, and your son's team would have still won. In fact, my way would simplify the rule and eliminate the need for exceptions like, "unless the throw-in team violates."

Now, I really fail to see how that really means much here anyway. A rule isn't more or less valid based on whose team it helps win?

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Snaqwells
Currently, I see the situation you set up above as unfairly penalizing a foul based on when it occurs.
Now, let's say A is throwing the ball in following an OOB violation and B1 fouls A2. Do we somehow preserve this throwin for later use? No. Yet many people think we should grant another throwin to the offended team if a defensive foul occurs following a held ball situation.
The way I see it, the defense is doubly penalized for a foul when it occurs during an AP throwin.

An AP situation is completely different than an OOB violation.

Alternating possession was established for many reasons, none of which we really need to get into. But the premise is that each time a held ball occurs, there's a 50% chance that each team will get the ball. Therefore, unless that a team violates during their turn, they are entitled to 50% of the held ball possessions.

To not allow A to keep the arrow when B fouls, gives B consecutive possessions on held balls, not alternating possessions.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Apr 21st, 2004 at 08:56 AM]

[Adam]

I disagree. They get the possession for the throwin. The foul is a result of that throwin, just like any foul occurs as a result of live action that precedes it. By handing the ball to A1, live action begins.
It all boils down to the fact that I see everything that happens during a throwin (including fouls, violations, etc.) as being a direct result of that throwin. B1 isn't going to foul A2 if B has the ball in this case. Therefore, once the ball is handed to A1, the arrow has served its purpose and should be switched. IMO, of course.

[Adam]

Originally posted by BktBallRef


To not allow A to keep the arrow when B fouls, gives B consecutive possessions on held balls, not alternating possessions.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Apr 21st, 2004 at 08:56 AM]

Not really. A gets possession, it just results in a foul rather than play on the court.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Snaqwells

Not really. A gets possession, it just results in a foul rather than play on the court.

By defintion, having the ball for a throw-in is not a possession.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Alternating possession was established for many reasons, none of which we really need to get into.

I thought the only reason for using the arrow was that officials couldn't toss the ball straight!?!

[Adam]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

By defintion, having the ball for a throw-in is not a possession.

semantics.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

I thought the only reason for using the arrow was that officials couldn't toss the ball straight!?!

That was actually listed as one of the reasons when the rule was first initiated. There was a concern about a general lack of skill by officials in administering jump balls. They also wanted to speed the game up, and they used the reasoning that Tony detailed above about approximately 50% of the possessions going to either team anyway.

[Nu1]

So, TEAM A has the ball for a throw in and A1 is OOB at his/her spot. A1 reaches over / through the OOB line, into the inbounds area while holding the ball and B1 grabs the ball...held ball.

The throw in did not end by being inbounded or by violation, so the arrow does not change and the ball goes back to TEAM A for another throw in. Is that correct???

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Nu1
So, TEAM A has the ball for a throw in and A1 is OOB at his/her spot. A1 reaches over / through the OOB line, into the inbounds area while holding the ball and B1 grabs the ball...held ball.

The throw in did not end by being inbounded or by violation, so the arrow does not change and the ball goes back to TEAM A for another throw in. Is that correct???

You got it

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by Snaqwells

semantics.

I guess I could buy yourarguments if it was called the "alternating throw-in" procedure, but it's not...you would be taking away a possession that team is entitled to because the other team commits a foul - that's not right...might as well say that when A1 is dribbling the ball and B1 fouls him/her but it's not the bonus, we're gonna give B the ball oob because A had their possession and to call a foul on B and give A the ball back would be penalizing B twice...doesn't make sense in either situation...

[Rickref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

You got it

Yes, the throw did end in this case. When it was touched by B1 who was inbounds the throw in was completed. Arrow changes and B now gets it.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Rickref
Yes, the throw did end in this case. When it was touched by B1 who was inbounds the throw in was completed. Arrow changes and B now gets it.

Might want to re-think that, Rick:

7.6.3 SITUATION F: Thrower A1 inadvertently holds the ball through the end-line plane during a throw-in. B1 is able to get his/her hands on the ball and A1 cannot pull it back. RULING: There is no player or team control during a throw in, therefore a held ball is called, resulting in an alternating-possession throw-in. If the original throw-in is an alternating-possession throw-in, Team A still has the arrow following the held ball.

[Rickref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Might want to re-think that, Rick:

7.6.3 SITUATION F: Thrower A1 inadvertently holds the ball through the end-line plane during a throw-in. B1 is able to get his/her hands on the ball and A1 cannot pull it back. RULING: There is no player or team control during a throw in, therefore a held ball is called, resulting in an alternating-possession throw-in. If the original throw-in is an alternating-possession throw-in, Team A still has the arrow following the held ball.

Your Correct!! My bad, was thinking in terms of a OOB throw in, not AP. I stand corrected.