The Official Forum - Alternating Possession Arrow Change

Page 5 of 8

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - Alternating Possession Arrow Change (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/22494-alternating-possession-arrow-change.html)

assignmentmaker

Sat Oct 08, 2005 04:07pm

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

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
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?

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.

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.

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

tia.

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

tia."

Hopefully you're not being sarcastic.

How can you have a kick without a touch? The same way attempting to measure an electrons momentum knocks it out of its original position and finding its position changes its momentum? But we're not concerned with the - what does Jurassic call them? - the Laws of Physics. When he's capitalizing, you know he's jellin'.

I would call this the same way you would, I believe . . . I am just pointing out that, while some 'situations' where two or perhaps more rules apply 'simultaneously' have been adjudicated, this one has not. You are interpreting it, as far as I can see, as though it had been interpreted by 'them', given the larger (backward-chaining, hehe) rules of the game. Fine.

Dan_ref

Sat Oct 08, 2005 05:22pm

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

Quote:

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
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?

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.

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.

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

tia.

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

tia."

Hopefully you're not being sarcastic.

How can you have a kick without a touch? The same way attempting to measure an electrons momentum knocks it out of its original position and finding its position changes its momentum? But we're not concerned with the - what does Jurassic call them? - the Laws of Physics. When he's capitalizing, you know he's jellin'.

:rolleyes:

Quote:

I would call this the same way you would, I believe . . . I am just pointing out that, while some 'situations' where two or perhaps more rules apply 'simultaneously' have been adjudicated, this one has not. You are interpreting it, as far as I can see, as though it had been interpreted by 'them', given the larger (backward-chaining, hehe) rules of the game. Fine.

Follow this chain - a kick requires a touch. An AP throw-in ends on any touch under both nfhs & ncaa rules. End of the chain: the kick is irrelevant in this case.

assignmentmaker

Sat Oct 08, 2005 05:38pm

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

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
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?

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.

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.

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

tia.

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

tia."

Hopefully you're not being sarcastic.

How can you have a kick without a touch? The same way attempting to measure an electrons momentum knocks it out of its original position and finding its position changes its momentum? But we're not concerned with the - what does Jurassic call them? - the Laws of Physics. When he's capitalizing, you know he's jellin'.

:rolleyes:

Quote:

I would call this the same way you would, I believe . . . I am just pointing out that, while some 'situations' where two or perhaps more rules apply 'simultaneously' have been adjudicated, this one has not. You are interpreting it, as far as I can see, as though it had been interpreted by 'them', given the larger (backward-chaining, hehe) rules of the game. Fine.

Follow this chain - a kick requires a touch. An AP throw-in ends on any touch under both nfhs & ncaa rules. End of the chain: the kick is irrelevant in this case.

All kicks have touches, not all touches have kicks, eh?

But the kick is 'irrelevant' in what sense? You're not going to penalize it? Sure you are, you're going to give the ball to Team A for a spot throw-in. You're just saying that the throw-in ended, then the kick happened. Fine. I agree. Other way around, the throw-in didn't end, because the ball became dead on the kick - there is not basis in the rules to say that a live ball doesn't become dead when intentionally kicked. Is there?

BktBallRef

Sat Oct 08, 2005 06:03pm

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

Quote:

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Other way around, the throw-in didn't end, because the ball became dead on the kick - there is not basis in the rules to say that a live ball doesn't become dead when intentionally kicked. Is there?

That's a double negative, so you're saying:

"there is basis in the rules to say that a live ball does become dead when intentionally kicked."

That's a true statement. What's your point?

Dan_ref

Sat Oct 08, 2005 06:21pm

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

Quote:

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
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?

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.

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.

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

tia.

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

tia."

Hopefully you're not being sarcastic.

How can you have a kick without a touch? The same way attempting to measure an electrons momentum knocks it out of its original position and finding its position changes its momentum? But we're not concerned with the - what does Jurassic call them? - the Laws of Physics. When he's capitalizing, you know he's jellin'.

:rolleyes:

Quote:

I would call this the same way you would, I believe . . . I am just pointing out that, while some 'situations' where two or perhaps more rules apply 'simultaneously' have been adjudicated, this one has not. You are interpreting it, as far as I can see, as though it had been interpreted by 'them', given the larger (backward-chaining, hehe) rules of the game. Fine.

Follow this chain - a kick requires a touch. An AP throw-in ends on any touch under both nfhs & ncaa rules. End of the chain: the kick is irrelevant in this case.

All kicks have touches, not all touches have kicks, eh?

But the kick is 'irrelevant' in what sense?

In the sense that the AP throw-in is ended regardless of whether a kick occurs or not.

RedRef

Sat Oct 08, 2005 06:22pm

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

Quote:

I'm trying to stay away from the disagreement on kick first vs. touch first and get back to the original play.

Your statement "An AP throw-in ends on any touch under both nfhs & ncaa rules." OK, I'll accept that. But explain this part of the NCAA rule...6.3.2 "An alternating possession throw-in shall end when the throw-in touches or is LEGALLY touched by an inbounds player other than the thrower-in..." (emphasis mine)

Why does the rule say touches or is legally touched? Why add legally touched if the throw-in ends on any touch? If the throw-in ends on any touch (legal or illegal), why add the part about a legal touch?

Dan_ref

Sat Oct 08, 2005 06:34pm

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

Quote:

Originally posted by RedRef

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
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?

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.

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.

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

tia.

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

tia."

Hopefully you're not being sarcastic.

How can you have a kick without a touch? The same way attempting to measure an electrons momentum knocks it out of its original position and finding its position changes its momentum? But we're not concerned with the - what does Jurassic call them? - the Laws of Physics. When he's capitalizing, you know he's jellin'.

:rolleyes:

Quote:

I would call this the same way you would, I believe . . . I am just pointing out that, while some 'situations' where two or perhaps more rules apply 'simultaneously' have been adjudicated, this one has not. You are interpreting it, as far as I can see, as though it had been interpreted by 'them', given the larger (backward-chaining, hehe) rules of the game. Fine.

Follow this chain - a kick requires a touch. An AP throw-in ends on any touch under both nfhs & ncaa rules. End of the chain: the kick is irrelevant in this case.

I'm trying to stay away from the disagreement on kick first vs. touch first and get back to the original play.

Your statement "An AP throw-in ends on any touch under both nfhs & ncaa rules." OK, I'll accept that. But explain this part of the NCAA rule...6.3.2 "An alternating possession throw-in shall end when the throw-in touches or is LEGALLY touched by an inbounds player other than the thrower-in..." (emphasis mine)

Why does the rule say touches or is legally touched? Why add legally touched if the throw-in ends on any touch? If the throw-in ends on any touch (legal or illegal), why add the part about a legal touch?

Good question Red. I wasn't in the room when the rule was written, but if I were to guess I would say at some point "touched" vs "legally touched" became an issue and it was put in that way.

However, my job is to apply the rule as written so the wording to me is quite plain - touched legally or not the AP throw-in is ended.

assignmentmaker

Sat Oct 08, 2005 07:28pm

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

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Other way around, the throw-in didn't end, because the ball became dead on the kick - there is not basis in the rules to say that a live ball doesn't become dead when intentionally kicked. Is there?

That's a double negative, so you're saying:

"there is basis in the rules to say that a live ball does become dead when intentionally kicked."

That's a true statement. What's your point?

Right. If you apply the rule governing a kick first, the ball is dead and the throw-in didn't end. You - and I, actually - would prefer to apply the rule governing the throw-in first. Throw-in ends, then kick happens. Ball to Team A for a spot throw-in. But there is no basis in the rules - such as they are - for deciding which rule to apply first when these particular events, touch and kick, happen simultaneously.

There are probably other such similar situations. Rule 'interaction' has apparently not been considered for ever possible instance. They should. That's why they get the big bucks.

assignmentmaker

Sat Oct 08, 2005 07:31pm

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

Quote:

"I'm trying to stay away from the disagreement on kick first vs. touch first and get back to the original play."

Which is where the matter of kick first vs. touch first resides.

Jurassic Referee

Sat Oct 08, 2005 07:42pm

Personally I think that it's all Tweety the Penguin's fault. Never did like the little sh!t.

He cheats on exams too.

Camron Rust

Sat Oct 08, 2005 08:10pm

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra
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?

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.

A kick most certainly is NOT good defense. If it were, we'd award the ball to the defending team.

Camron Rust

Sat Oct 08, 2005 08:21pm

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

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
However, my job is to apply the rule as written so the wording to me is quite plain - touched legally or not the AP throw-in is ended.

It sure is amusing how the very same people (not necessarily refering to you, Dan) will use the "call it as its written" when it agrees their side of the debate but will call it how they "think it should be" when that is in line with their point of view.

There are many here who belive that a player should be called for a block simply by being contacted while OOB. However, that rule, as written says no such thing...only that such a player doesn't have LGP. Yet, they'll call it a block in spite of what is written in the rule.

The primary factor that is lacking in those sorts of arguments is one of the basics of officiation: knowing the PURPOSE and INTENT of a rule. A deeper understanding of the rule than what is in black and white.

BktBallRef

Sat Oct 08, 2005 09:01pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust
It sure is amusing how the very same people (not necessarily refering to you, Dan) will use the "call it as its written" when it agrees their side of the debate but will call it how they "think it should be" when that is in line with their point of view.

Like yourself? You sound like the proverbial pot to me.

There's no gray area with regards to this play. It is black and white. You don't agree with it, therefore, you have a deeper understanding.

Right.

Dan_ref

Sat Oct 08, 2005 10:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: thanks for the replies

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
However, my job is to apply the rule as written so the wording to me is quite plain - touched legally or not the AP throw-in is ended.

It sure is amusing how the very same people (not necessarily refering to you, Dan) will use the "call it as its written" when it agrees their side of the debate but will call it how they "think it should be" when that is in line with their point of view.

No, I have no problem at all with being lumped with the folks who say call it as it's written for some plays but lumped with others who say call it as it should be for others.

Ya see, I kinda like doing this stuff, and I do what I can to keep doing it.

Texas Aggie

Sat Oct 08, 2005 11:27pm

>>That change just a couple years ago on the jump certainly made mental life easier - easier than saying, hmm, you possessed it, then, by virtue of that, you violated.<<

I never understood the confusion on this. The violation was for "possession," it was for grasping or holding the ball when tossed (whatever the specific word is). It wasn't a "possession" because the ball becomes dead immediately.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:33am.

Page 5 of 8

« First

Last »

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1