Both Cheeks, double arrow switch?

[Back In The Saddle]

I've just read an article on the pay site about the Resuming Play Procedure, well penned by one of our own, I might add. I have a question about one point raised by the author.

Neither team is ready to play at the end of the time out. The referee elects to instigate the RPP, places the ball on the floor and begins a count. At five, the referee blows the whistle and indicates the change of possession. An additional caveat is given about changing the arrow if the throw-in was the result of an AP.

The referee indicates the ball belongs to the other team now, and begins a count. At five, the referee again blows the whistle, indicating a violation. So far I'm following this just fine. The author then indicates that the ball goes back to the original team, and the arrow, as applicable.

In the summary, the author again indicates that the with the second violation the official may have to switch the arrow a second time.

I have to admit that I'm a little confued. With the first violation, if the throw-in had been awareded because of an AP, I can see the arrow switch because of a throw-in violation. However, the second throw-in is not an AP throw-in, is it? Would you ever have a case where the arrow is again switched?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
I've just read an article on the pay site about the Resuming Play Procedure, well penned by one of our own, I might add. I have a question about one point raised by the author.

Neither team is ready to play at the end of the time out. The referee elects to instigate the RPP, places the ball on the floor and begins a count. At five, the referee blows the whistle and indicates the change of possession. An additional caveat is given about changing the arrow if the throw-in was the result of an AP.

The referee indicates the ball belongs to the other team now, and begins a count. At five, the referee again blows the whistle, indicating a violation. So far I'm following this just fine. The author then indicates that the ball goes back to the original team, and the arrow, as applicable.

In the summary, the author again indicates that the with the second violation the official may have to switch the arrow a second time.

I have to admit that I'm a little confued. With the first violation, if the throw-in had been awareded because of an AP, I can see the arrow switch because of a throw-in violation. However, the second throw-in is not an AP throw-in, is it? Would you ever have a case where the arrow is again switched?

Wow, you got me, Ray. Great point. Hm...

Doggone it! Now I've got to think. You've ruined my whole day!

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Wow, you got me, Ray. Great point. Hm...

Doggone it! Now I've got to think. You've ruined my whole day!

Ruined your whole day? I should think it'd make you smile to know folks are reading your stuff. Carefully at that.

[JugglingReferee]

The arrow iw switched when a throw-in b/c of the arrow has ended. This is when there's a violation by the throwin-in team or someone inbounds touches it.

Switch it once, I think.

I could be wrong though...

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee
The arrow iw switched when a throw-in b/c of the arrow has ended. This is when there's a violation by the throwin-in team or someone inbounds touches it.

Switch it once, I think.

I could be wrong though...

You're not wrong.

The RPP has nothing (different) to do with the arrow.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

You're not wrong.

The RPP has nothing (different) to do with the arrow.

But Bits is right.... or is he not? The sitch is that Team A will get the ball oob on an AP situation. Then a time-out is called. Now both teams delay coming back in. The ref resorts to the RPP and the ball is placed on the floor and Team A violates. Now A loses the ball and the arrow. Team B also delays and violates by not getting the ball inbounds on the 5-count. Does B lose the arrow? I said yes in my article, but Bits thinks not. Now I'm confused.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by rainmaker

But Bits is right.... or is he not? The sitch is that Team A will get the ball oob on an AP situation. Then a time-out is called. Now both teams delay coming back in. The ref resorts to the RPP and the ball is placed on the floor and Team A violates. Now A loses the ball and the arrow. Team B also delays and violates by not getting the ball inbounds on the 5-count. Does B lose the arrow? I said yes in my article, but Bits thinks not. Now I'm confused.

Ignore, for a moment, that it's after a TO.

A has the arrow, and there's a held ball.

A1 leaves the spot. Violation. Change the arrow. Give the ball to B.

B1 leaves the spot. Violation. DONT change the arrow. Give the ball to A.

Same thing if it's after a TO (except that it will be a T if anyone isn't ready now).

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Ignore, for a moment, that it's after a TO.

A has the arrow, and there's a held ball.

A1 leaves the spot. Violation. Change the arrow. Give the ball to B.

B1 leaves the spot. Violation. DONT change the arrow. Give the ball to A.

Same thing if it's after a TO (except that it will be a T if anyone isn't ready now).

Okay, thanks. I've been looking in the books to see if the ball after the first violation is still an AP. I couldn't find anything definitive. Your way makes more sense. I hope I can get a correction posted into my article before tomorrow morning.

bob and Bitsy (hey, that has a certain ring doesn't it?!) I owe you guys both a big favor.

[rockyroad]

Juulie, B's throw-in is a result of a violation by team A, not a result of an AP situation...if they violate under the RPP they would lose the ball, but not the arrow...

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by rockyroad
Juulie, B's throw-in is a result of a violation by team A, not a result of an AP situation...if they violate under the RPP they would lose the ball, but not the arrow...

yea, I got it now. And Carl changed the appropriate places in the article, so unless you tell, no one will be the wiser.

Thanks to Bits for pointing it out. And Ray, I may hire you to proofread!

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by rainmaker

yea, I got it now. And Carl changed the appropriate places in the article, so unless you tell, no one will be the wiser.

Thanks to Bits for pointing it out. And Ray, I may hire you to proofread!

I'm sure we could work out something.