Apples and oranges.

There was a provision put in to keep A from losing the advantage of running the end line on a violation by B. By doing this the type of throw-in remains the same after the violation.

On an AP throw-in it is a spot throw-in. The violation does not take the possession away from A, which is what the arrow gave them, the arrow served it's purpose and by rule the AP throw-in ended on the kick. The throw-in remains a spot throw-in, A remains in possession, and team B is not gaining a possession through a violation.

The background of rule 7-5-7, is to prevent the kicker from getting the advantage of making the end line throw-in a "spot" throw-in, instead of a "run the end line" throw in. If the kicker was near a sideline, the throw-in is a "spot" throw-in, at the sideline. The intent of the rule is to let the throwing team retain that advantage, if it would still be an end-line throw-in.

Kicking the ball, is still a "legal" touching of the ball; that is, you would chop the clock in, and proper time could run off the clock. The time may be a few tenths of a second, but some finite time would run off the clock.

The throw-in ended when the ball was touched, even by the kicker, and the arrow should be changed.

I think....

You are on this like a robin on a worm
 

If, in the AP throw-in situation, B5 steps out of bounds at any time up to but not including the moment A1's throw-in hits a player in bounds . . . violation for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason, right? Does not Team A get the ball for a non-AP throw in and, because the AP throw-in did not end, does not Team A also retain the arrow?

Ought our thinking change as the violation (kick) and the touch of the ball inbounds approach each other in time until there is no perceptible distance between the events?

Saying that "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." asks us to treat a more complex situation as though it were exactly equivalent to a simpler one.

Decision by analogy stands. This is what 'the committee' would want, if they ever got around to cleaning up the rules.

Wow, this sure has been complicated for no reason.

6-3-4
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.

4-41-5
The throw-in ends when the passed ball touches, or is touched by, an inbounds player other than the thrower.

Notice that 4-41-5 does not say "...when the passed ball LEGALLY touches..." The arrow is switched in cases when the kick occurs.

The running the endline situation is a completely separate issue that's addressed by a specific rule and case plays.

As BZ said, apples to oranges.

As JR said....

Rules rulez!

I agree with your logic based on the rules referenced. I still think the defense is rewarded for the kicking violation, but that's just my opinion.

I asked the original question and I asked for an NFHS ruling, but I'll offer NCAA rule 4-65-5..."A throw-in shall end when the passed ball is controlled by an in-bounds player."

Because the NCAA rule specifically calls for control before the throw-in ends, would you agree the arrow would not be switched under NCAA rules? There would be no control if the first touching was a kicking violation.

I, too, think the defense is rewarded for violating, but I don't think there's rules justification for calling it any other way. Yet another example of how the rule book is poorly written. What are we up to now, 10, maybe 12 things that need re-writing?

No.

6-3-2.

It doesn't have to say legally touched
 

You can say the throw-in ended just like you can say it's spinach and the hell with it, but that is oversimplifying the situation. It's not clear that the throw-in event supercedes the violation of kicking the ball. There is no answer in the rules.

You're right. You can't oversimplify it because it doesn't get any simplier.

AP throw-in.

Throw-in pass is touched by a player on the floor.

Therefore, the throw-in ends.

The AP arrow is changed.

Team A gets the ball for a throw-in because Team B violated.

That's the correct ruling, whether you or anybody else, likes it or not.

Re: It doesn't have to say legally touched
 

Unfortunately, there is an answer in the rules. The throw-in ends when the ball is touched. Period. I don't like it, either, but there's no getting around it.

Why is a kick any different than B1 deflecting the ball OOB with his/her hand?

B1 is not gaining an advantage, they played good defense or A1 made a poor throw-in pass, but in either case neither A1 nor B1 did anything to keep or lose the right to the arrow.

A kick is different because it is, in itself, illegal. a deflection isn't. See the difference?

Re: Re: It doesn't have to say legally touched
 

What did the arrow initially give team A?

Possession of the ball.

Did B1's kick take that away from team A?

Nope.

How is a kick different than B1 knocking the ball OOB with his/her hand? Do you want to give A the ball back plus the next AP throw-in on that play too?

Perhaps we need the official to judge if the violation was caused by good defense or just a bad pass, before we switch the arrow?:rolleyes:

The results are the same, it's a violation and the other team gets a spot throw-in.

A kick is not so heinous an act to warrant losing the next AP throw-in. It's good defense, period.