Alternating Possession Arrow Change

[RedRef]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

For the reasons already stated, switch the arrow towards B's basket immediately. Give ball to A for a non-AP throw-in.

Report the foul and administer it by giving the ball to B for a non-AP throw-in. (Assuming bonus is not in effect.)

The arrow only changes after the team entitled to the arrow completes an AP throw-in or violates during an AP throw-in. Since B's throw-in was the result of a foul and not the result of an AP situation, the arrow does not change. B retains the arrow after the throw-in.

Help me understand exactly when to switch the arrow...You switch the arrow when an AP throw-in ends. An AP throw-in ends when the throw-in ends or when the throw-in team violates.

So are you saying the throw-in has ended? The throw-in ends when the passed ball touches an inbounds player.

Is this correct?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by RedRef

Help me understand exactly when to switch the arrow...You switch the arrow when an AP throw-in ends. An AP throw-in ends when the throw-in ends or when the throw-in team violates.

So are you saying the throw-in has ended? The throw-in ends when the passed ball touches an inbounds player.

Is this correct?

Yup- NFHS rule 4-42-5 as already cited.

[RedRef]

[/B][/QUOTE]Yup- NFHS rule 4-42-5 as already cited. [/B][/QUOTE]


Gotcha...

Let me ask this... A1 has ball for AP throw-in. A1 throws ball in and B1 immediately kicks. A1 has ball for throw-in from kick violation. Arrow goes to B. A2 fouls B2 before throw-in complete. Throw-in to B from foul on A2.

Did A ever benefit from the AP throw-in? They lost the arrow because of a kicking violation, which seems to reward the defense. Add on the foul where Team A deserves to lose the ball and now Team B has the ball and the next arrow.

[Smitty]

Originally posted by RedRef

Yup- NFHS rule 4-42-5 as already cited. [/B][/QUOTE]


Gotcha...

Let me ask this... A1 has ball for AP throw-in. A1 throws ball in and B1 immediately kicks. A1 has ball for throw-in from kick violation. Arrow goes to B. A2 fouls B2 before throw-in complete. Throw-in to B from foul on A2.

Did A ever benefit from the AP throw-in? They lost the arrow because of a kicking violation, which seems to reward the defense. Add on the foul where Team A deserves to lose the ball and now Team B has the ball and the next arrow. [/B][/QUOTE]

That was my thinking as well. Since the rule specifically states that a violation by the throwing team on an AP throw in results in the loss of the arrow, I deduced that a violation by the defensive team during an AP throw-in would NOT result in the loss of the arrow. This makes sense to me.

Otherwise I would think the rule would state that any violation during an AP throw-in would result in the loss of the arrow. That makes no sense to me.

[Ref in PA]

Originally posted by RedRef

Yup- NFHS rule 4-42-5 as already cited. [/B][/QUOTE]


Gotcha...

Let me ask this... A1 has ball for AP throw-in. A1 throws ball in and B1 immediately kicks. A1 has ball for throw-in from kick violation. Arrow goes to B. A2 fouls B2 before throw-in complete. Throw-in to B from foul on A2.

Did A ever benefit from the AP throw-in? They lost the arrow because of a kicking violation, which seems to reward the defense. Add on the foul where Team A deserves to lose the ball and now Team B has the ball and the next arrow. [/B][/QUOTE]

A had the opportunity to make and complete a throw-in. B1 made a heck of a defensive play to block the ball, but he did it with his foot, which cause B to violate. Where does it say you have to benefit form an AP throw-in? If B1 intercepts the throw-in and scores a layup did A benefit? No. Was it a legal throw-in? Yes.

In my mind, Team A's AP throw-in ended when the ball was touched in bounds. Switch the arrow. Now if B violates by kicking or knocking the ball oob, A has a spot throwin again, but not an AP throw-in.

7-5-7 speaks of B violating and A retaining the right to run the base line, but this seems to be an exception only in this case. The other articles of rule 7-5 speak of other types of throwins. So, I don't think the violation by B in the example would apply to a spot AP throw-in.

[RedRef]

A had the opportunity to make and complete a throw-in. B1 made a heck of a defensive play to block the ball, but he did it with his foot, which cause B to violate. Where does it say you have to benefit form an AP throw-in? If B1 intercepts the throw-in and scores a layup did A benefit? No. Was it a legal throw-in? Yes.

Is it really "a heck of defensive play" if it's an illegal defensive play? A kick is a violation, so I can't agree that it's a great defensive play and definitely not one that should be rewarded.

I do agree that A had the "opportunity" to complete the throw-in. But, that throw-in opportunity was never completed because of an illegal act by B.

[Ref in PA]

What if B1 simply knocks the ball directly oob? B1 violated. Does A1 retain an AP throw-in? No. The kicking provision (and foul provision) is only mentioned on a throw-in after an awarded basket. No where else is that provision explained. For us to extrapolate and say that applies to AP spot throw-ins is stretching the rules in my opinion.

[Smitty]

Originally posted by Ref in PA
What if B1 simply knocks the ball directly oob? B1 violated. Does A1 retain an AP throw-in? No. The kicking provision (and foul provision) is only mentioned on a throw-in after an awarded basket. No where else is that provision explained. For us to extrapolate and say that applies to AP spot throw-ins is stretching the rules in my opinion.

The difference is, in your scenario, the ball touches a player to end the throw-in, and then a violation occurred. Two separate and distinct acts occurring at different times. In the original scenario, the violation and touching occur simultaneously. So which do you apply first? I don't think my logic is stretching the rules. When the rule states explicitly that a violation by the throwing team on an AP throw-in results in the loss of the arrow, applying the converse scenario seems to make sense to me. If the defense violates during the AP throw-in, there is no loss of the arrow.

Determining if the touch to end the throw-in occurred before the violation occurred - I think that's up for debate. I'm going with the violation on B during the AP throw-in and no loss of the arrow for A.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Good point.

That language was put in so that the throwing team on a non-spot throw-in doesn't lose a natural advantage because of a defensive violation. On a spot AP throw-in like this one, however, there is NO advantage lost by the throwing team. No matter what, the arrow was gonna be switched to B- either right then if there was no violation or on the repeat throw-in if you make that one an AP throw-in--- and team B was also penalized for the kick, no matter what. If you do let A keep the arrow, they're gaining an unfair advantage. They get a repeat throw-in and an extra AP out of it.

A does lose an advantage. B would gain the arrow through an illegal act. That is certainly not what is intended. The repeat throwin is no longer an AP throwin since there is a kick that is being penalized.

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

The bottom line though is that it still remains that there is presently no rules language extant that would let you repeat the throw-in and let team A retain the AP also. Right?

Rule 6-3: The direction of the possession arrow is reversed immediately after an alternating-possession throw-in ends. An alternating-possession throw-in ends when the throw-in ends or when the throw-in team violates.

Team A only loses the arrow if the throwin ends or if team A violates. The NFHS has established that a kick that is simultaneous with the ending of the throwin is considered to have occured before the throwin ends. Therefore, the throwin has has not ended when complicated by a kick. The kick supercedes the throwin ending.

[assignmentmaker]

"An alternating-possession throw-in ends when the throw-in ends or when the throw-in team violates."

So, proof by ommission, an alternating-possession throw-in does not end when the non-throw-in team violates. Therefore the chicken, in this case the kick, came first? I like it.

So, simultaneous violations . . .

1. the old 'you caught the jump, they get the ball and the arrow' was resolved a couple years ago, not by generalization but by fiat.

2. the stretch your temporal imagination simultaneous free throw violation of a defender in early and a shoorter's airball is resolved by saying they happen at the same time

3. the current case . . .

4. what other instances of dueling violations do we encounter?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
Team A only loses the arrow if the throwin ends or if team A violates. The NFHS has established that a kick that is simultaneous with the ending of the throwin is considered to have occured before the throwin ends.

Camron -- where is this established? I'd like to think you're right, but I also would like to see it in print.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

A does lose an advantage. B would gain the arrow through an illegal act. That is certainly not what is intended. The repeat throwin is no longer an AP throwin since there is a kick that is being penalized.

Rule 6-3: The direction of the possession arrow is reversed immediately after an alternating-possession throw-in ends. An alternating-possession throw-in ends when the throw-in ends or when the throw-in team violates.

Team A only loses the arrow if the throwin ends or if team A violates. The NFHS has established that a kick that is simultaneous with the ending of the throwin is considered to have occured before the throwin ends. Therefore, the throwin has has not ended when complicated by a kick. The kick supercedes the throwin ending.

Nice theory.

Unfortunately, you don't have a rules citation of any kind to back it up though, do you?

You can't supercede any rule without accompanying rules language to do so. Rule 6-3 that you cited above sez that the AP arrow changes when the throw-in ends. Rule 4-42-5 as cited several times already sez the throw-in ends when it touches an in-bounds player other than the thrower. There are NO written exceptions listed anywhere that I know of that supercedes these particular rules citations. Theories don't supercede anything, Camron.

Rules rulez!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Camron -- where is this established? I'd like to think you're right, but I also would like to see it in print.

Me too.

[RedRef]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Camron -- where is this established? I'd like to think you're right, but I also would like to see it in print.

I can't specifically answer this question, but I did research the AP issue a little more thoroughly. I found the NCAA has clarified the AP throw-in ending and the 'regular' throw-in ending. Here's what the NCAA says...

"An alternating possession throw-in shall end when the throw-in touches or is legally touched by an in bounds player other than the thrower-in..." The legally touched portion is important. The kick violation would not be a legal touch, therefore, the AP throw-in has not ended and the arrow is not reversed.

"A throw-in shall end when the passed ball is controlled by an inbounds player." Controlled by an inbounds player...the kick violation is not control, so the throw-in has not ended.

With these definitions, I'd say the arrow is not switched on the kicking violation. No legal touch, no control.

Any other comments?

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Me too.

*7.5.7 SITUATION B: Team A scores a field goal. B1 picks up the ball after the made basket, then proceeds out of bounds to start the throw-in process. B1 runs along the end line out of bounds while attempting to find an open teammate for the throw-in. Immediately after B1 releases the throw-in pass, the ball is kicked by A2 (a) near the end line; or (b) near the division line. Ruling: A2 has violated by kicking the ball. In (a), Team B will be awarded a throw-in and retain the right to run the end line on the ensuing throw-in. In (b), Team B will put the ball in play at a designated spot nearest the violation.

The ONLY way this case can be reconciled with the ending of the throwin is to consider kick to occur first. If the end of the throwin were to apply, the penalty for a kick would be a spot throwin. This is exactly the question at hand. When a throwin ends with a violation, the violation, according to 7.5.7 happens before the throwin ends.