Nope, with regards to this rule, there's no difference.

Again, if the throw-in rule said "The throw-in ends when the ball is LEGALLY touched inbounds," the situation would be different. But it doesn't. :p

It doesn't seem reasonable to me that the results should be the same. I mean, this isn't a huge deal, really, but it's one of those darn little pebbles in the shoes.

Why do you presume that what's said
 

Why do you presume that what's said re: the termination of the throw-in should be acted on first when 2 things happen at once? If you take the kick as coming first, that's it, the ball's dead, and the touch to end the throw-in never happened. Are you suggesting there's something in the rules that tells you to act on the termination of throw-in first?

Re: Why do you presume that what's said
 

How can you kick it without touching it? One cannot happen first, since they are the same thing.

Why should the act of kicking the ball cost team B the next AP possession? What you are arguing is that A should be entitled to an extra possession. A possession they got from the arrow, and did not lose because of the kicking violation. Seems like a pretty extreme penalty for playing defense with no advantage gained.

What are the rules that we are mindful of them?
 

The following refers to forward-chaining logic - logic which is data-driven. The opposite, backward-chaining is so-called goal-driven logic. The 'rules' of basketball apply both systems willy-nilly. I am sympathetic towards those who would like there to be an answer to every 'situation' - but, unsurprisingly, there isn't.

----------------

A number of conflict resolution strategies are typically used to decide which rule to fire. These include:

Don't fire a rule twice on the same data. We don't want to keep on adding to working memory.

Fire rules on more recent working memory elements before older ones. This allows the system to follow through a single chain of reasoning, rather than keeping on drawing new conclusions from old data.

Fire rules with more specific preconditions before ones with more general preconditions. This allows us to deal with non-standard cases. If, for example, we have a rule ``IF (bird X) THEN ADD (flies X)'' and another rule ``IF (bird X) AND (penguin X) THEN ADD (swims X)'' and a penguin called tweety, then we would fire the second rule first and start to draw conclusions from the fact that tweety swims.

These strategies may help in getting reasonable behaviour from a forward chaining system, but the most important thing is how we write the rules. They should be carefully constructed, with the preconditions specifying as precisely as possible when different rules should fire. Otherwise we will have little idea or control of what will happen.

Thanks, Alison . . .

Re: Re: Why do you presume that what's said
 

Of course you can't kick it without touching it. So, how do you decide which comes first, the chicken or the egg, the violation or the termination of the free-throw? You need a rule. I don't think we have one. We do have a rule that Cameron Rust has suggested is decided to resolve a similar, though not identical, situation. Perhaps it shows what the rule would be if 'they' get around to making one.

A is not going to get an 'extra' possession. They never finished the one they had, due to B's violation - so they'll get to finish it later, if in fact the chance comes again.

If it doesn't, would that be unfair? It would take some serious backward-chaining, 'goal-oriented' rules to decide that! It's probably not very decidable.

Re: Why do you presume that what's said
 

I'm not presuming anything. When the ball is touched, the throw-in ends. You're saying that the ball can be kicked without being touched. Sorry Jeff but that's stupid. It's too stupid to even argue. I'm done.

Say what?

Deflecting the ball OOB <b>isn't</b> illegal? It isn't a violation?

Rule 9-3-1 seems to say something completely different.

That's a basic, Juulie. You're over-thinking this one. "What-ifs" and rationalizations won't work when you have clear rules language. The relevant rules being discussed aren't in any way ambiguous.

Re: What are the rules that we are mindful of them?
 

What color is the sky in your world?

Sheer freaking bafflegab!

I know the rules aren't ambiguous, and I'm not arguing about the interp. I know the rule, and I'll enforce it. I just don't like it.

Re: Re: Why do you presume that what's said
 

I'm not saying the ball can be kicked without being touched. I'm saying that, if you have two events occur simultaneously, you can resolve the situation, in the absence of a rule for doing so, this by concluding that:

1) Event A occurred before event B; Kick before touch - ball is dead, touch didn't happen.

2) B occurred before A (Touch before kick, throw-in ended, arrow to Team B, ball back to Team A for a spot throw-in)

Precedent for concluding that one event occurred before another as a way of resolving an apparently simultaneous situation exists in the recently addressed matter of catching the tap.

Stupid? Nice talk.

Well.....Tweety the freaking penguin and his brother X Penguin and his sister Alison Penguin say that you damn well better like that rule. Or else! :D

http://www.sodamnfunny.com/Animation...guinsdance.gif

Re: Re: Re: Why do you presume that what's said
 

Please explain how you can have a kick without a touch.

tia.

Please explain how you can have a kick without a touch.

[/B][/QUOTE]Tsk, tsk, tsk.....

He's already explained that. The Laws of Physics don't apply to penguins named Tweety.