Foul on AP throw in

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Rickref

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

Still, the throwin has not been completed on an OOB throw-in. The held ball happens before the throwin ends. A throwin has to be released to be completed.

[Adam]

Originally posted by rockyroad
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...

Ah, but the award on an AP is the throwin, not the right to possession on the court. We don't let them keep the arrow if B2 steals the ball, or if A3 steps out of bounds. If we want their reward to be a "possession" then we should just go to playground rules just check the ball in at the top of the key.
I'm not taking anyone from anyone. That foul doesn't happen without the throwin. Let me put it this way.
On an OOB violation, the reward for the other team is a throwin at the spot. Yet, for a held ball, the reward is a "possession," according to your thoughts above. Why is the reward greater when there was technically no violation to begin with?

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by Snaqwells

Ah, but the award on an AP is the throwin, not the right to possession on the court. We don't let them keep the arrow if B2 steals the ball, or if A3 steps out of bounds. If we want their reward to be a "possession" then we should just go to playground rules just check the ball in at the top of the key.
I'm not taking anyone from anyone. That foul doesn't happen without the throwin. Let me put it this way.
On an OOB violation, the reward for the other team is a throwin at the spot. Yet, for a held ball, the reward is a "possession," according to your thoughts above. Why is the reward greater when there was technically no violation to begin with?

I will answer your scenario after you answer mine - since mine came first!!

[Adam]

Originally posted by rockyroad
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...

It's not the same. The penalty for this foul is always a throwin for the fouled team, plus an addition to the team and player foul counts.
My point is that the arrow has served its purpose as soon as the ball is handed to A1, and giving A the next AP possession due to a foul on B during the ensuing throwin is tantamount to double-penalizing team B. You're giving A a throwin (or free throws) and the foul count *plus* the next AP throw-in; when they've already benefited from the AP arrow.

Now can you answer my question?

[rockyroad]

It's not a greater punishment...sorry, but it really is that simple. Team A was entitled to that throw-in, and to take that away from them because the other team does something "wrong" is, well, just wrong...that AP throw-in doesn't end until a normal throw-in ends, so if B fouls while the thrower is still holding the ball, the AP throw-in never ended...as far as some of your other points - if A decides to violate or throw a bad pass which is picked off by B, then A caused themselves to lose that throw-in, but you can't take it awqay because B does something against the rules...

[Adam]

Originally posted by rockyroad
It's not a greater punishment...sorry, but it really is that simple. Team A was entitled to that throw-in, and to take that away from them because the other team does something "wrong" is, well, just wrong...that AP throw-in doesn't end until a normal throw-in ends, so if B fouls while the thrower is still holding the ball, the AP throw-in never ended...as far as some of your other points - if A decides to violate or throw a bad pass which is picked off by B, then A caused themselves to lose that throw-in, but you can't take it awqay because B does something against the rules...

I know no one sees it like I do, I just don't necessarily understand why. The throw-in is the reward on the AP, not a "possession." If that throw-in results in a foul on B, then A has received the full benefit of the AP arrow and I see no reason the rules *should* further benefit A by giving them the next arrow as well.
I know what the rules say, I just think it's philosophically wrong in this case. I think it boils down to what we think the result of the AP *should* be. Should it be a possession, or a throw-in? I think it should be a "throw-in," with all results of the throw-in considered as "results of the throw-in."

But, like I said before, I'm not on the rules committee.

[rainmaker]

Adam -- look at it from the other side of the coin. If the defense gets the arrow for fouling that constitutes an unfair reward. Sure they get the team foul and personal foul added on, and they may have to give up a point or two, but there's a reward, that could make it worth it to foul. Does that seem fair?

[Adam]

Juulie,
What's the reward? They get the next alternating possession? They would have had that anyway. There's no reward there.

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by Snaqwells


I know no one sees it like I do, I just don't necessarily understand why.

and I don't necessarily understand why you see it the way that you do, but that's ok...it's been a fun dialogue...now, according to internet discussion board etiquette, we need to insult each other a few times just to show that we have really hashed this one out, so here goes: "Non possis distinguere tuum podicem a Puticulis"...so there!

[Adam]

Originally posted by rockyroad

and I don't necessarily understand why you see it the way that you do, but that's ok...it's been a fun dialogue...now, according to internet discussion board etiquette, we need to insult each other a few times just to show that we have really hashed this one out, so here goes: "Non possis distinguere tuum podicem a Puticulis"...so there!

Okay, but which one of us is going to call the other a Nazi?

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Snaqwells
Juulie,
What's the reward? They get the next alternating possession? They would have had that anyway. There's no reward there.

Not if you don't change the arrow as the rule currently stands.

End game...B down by 7 with 1 minute to go. Held Ball. A has the arrow and gets the ball for a throwin. B has committed only 4 fouls. They're playing highly aggressive defensive on the throwin to try to get a steal without worrying about a foul. However, they do foul (before the throwin is touched).

Now we have two choices:

(1) Change the arrow and give the ball to A for a throwin as part of the penalty for the foul.

(2) Don't change the arrow and give the ball to A ....


There may or may not be another held ball and B wants to get to the bonus anyway. Another held ball could be pivotable.

In (1), B might as well kill two birds with one stone and get the arrow in the deal since it's for free. So, A gets nothing. They already had the ball for a throwin, now B fouls. They still have the ball, but lost the arrow. Not equitable.

In (2), B doesn't gain anything from fouling beyond a similar foul at any other time.

The Arrow is to grant team A the right to make the next "undecidable" throwin unless they mess it up. They can't lose it by B's actions.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Not if you don't change the arrow as the rule currently stands.

End game...B down by 7 with 1 minute to go. Held Ball. A has the arrow and gets the ball for a throwin. B has committed only 4 fouls. They're playing highly aggressive defensive on the throwin to try to get a steal without worrying about a foul. However, they do foul (before the throwin is touched).

Now we have two choices:

(1) Change the arrow and give the ball to A for a throwin as part of the penalty for the foul.

(2) Don't change the arrow and give the ball to A ....


There may or may not be another held ball and B wants to get to the bonus anyway. Another held ball could be pivotable.

In (1), B might as well kill two birds with one stone and get the arrow in the deal since it's for free. So, A gets nothing. They already had the ball for a throwin, now B fouls. They still have the ball, but lost the arrow. Not equitable.

In (2), B doesn't gain anything from fouling beyond a similar foul at any other time.

The Arrow is to grant team A the right to make the next "undecidable" throwin unless they mess it up. They can't lose it by B's actions.

Leave it to Camron to give a clear, useful explanation!

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Snaqwells

Okay, but which one of us is going to call the other a Nazi?

Oooops...you lose. Godwin's Law.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rockyroad

"Non possis distinguere tuum podicem a Puticulis"...so there!

Oooooo, Rocky just called him a pusillanimous polecat. If anybody ever called me that, I'd get my dog to bite 'em!

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Oooooo, Rocky just called him a pusillanimous polecat. If anybody ever called me that, I'd get my dog to bite 'em!

Not quite...

Here's a good one to figure out:

Quando podeces te regi eorum fecerunt?