I believe that, speaking technically now,
 

The old ruling was that, upon catching the toss, A1 gained control of the ball, resulting in the arrow being set for Team B, and also violated the prohibition against catching the toss, giving the ball to Team B. Thus Team B got the arrow and the ball.

The change a couple years ago changed the mandated way to resolve this particular situation where more that one rule is arguably applicable so that Team B gets the ball, Team A gets the arrow.

What is the purpose of defense?

To stop or disrupt what the offense is attempting to do.

Does a kick disrupt the throw-in?

Yep, thus it's good defense.:rolleyes:

Except that was by illegal means. If kicking was good defense it would not be against the rules.:rolleyes:

To me it's black and white. I'm not claiming I have a deeper understanding becasue I don't agree. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency that exists if you don't consider the kick to occur before the arrow is switched.

We have a violation and it applies. The NFHS established an interpretation on a similar situation a couple of years ago. In that case, the kick is considered to effectively occur before the throwin ends when the throwin ends with a kick. This was done to prevent the defense from gaining an advantage by kicking the ball. The penalty left A in same situation they were in prior to the kick. To take the arrow away from A becasue B kicked the ball is a reward for B, not a penalty.

If you really look at the "end of throwin" rule that has been cited, the AP arrow is to be switch "after" the throwin ends. In that sense there is no "after" since a violation prevented us from getting there.

The rules are written as if the situations are uncomplicated by other issues. In the case of two situations occuring simultaneously, there are often case plays defining how the rules are to be combined. Where such a case does not exist reasoning and logic has to be applied. It is simply not logical or consistent with <em>all</em> the rules and case plays to switch the arrow when B kicks the ball.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Oct 9th, 2005 at 11:12 PM]

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

I don't really have an issue with it either when its a matter of applying common sense to a rule to not be overly officious....like not calling a violation every time a defender's finger breaks a throwin plane, or not calling a foul just because there was contact, or not calling 3 seconds just because the 5'3" guard had one foot in the top corner of the key, or asking the coach to be aware of the box rather than T'ing him the firsts time his toes cross the line.

But its a different thing when the "not by the book" call is to call something beyond what the book specifies. I liken it to calling a foul on someone because they came close to making contact on a ill-advised swat at the ball or calling a block on someone becasue they were under the basket.

In this case, given 7.5.7, I believe switching the arrow is beyond what is specified. I belive the penalty for the kick is the only consequence of the play.



[Edited by Camron Rust on Oct 9th, 2005 at 11:10 PM]

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

In this case, given 7.5.7, I believe switching the arrow is beyond what is specified. I belive the penalty for the kick is the only consequence of the play.

[/B][/QUOTE]Well, to state the obvious......

R7-5-7 and the case book plays under 7.5.7 are relevant and apply <b>only</b> to <b>non-spot</b> throw-ins. AP throw-ins are <b>never</b> non-spot throw-ins.

Good luck, Camron. Might be a good idea though to run that one by your association or state rules interpreter before you try calling it that way.

Grasping for straws, Camron.

Like it or not, the kick ends the AP throw-in.

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

Well, to state the obvious......

R7-5-7 and the case book plays under 7.5.7 are relevant and apply <b>only</b> to <b>non-spot</b> throw-ins. AP throw-ins are <b>never</b> non-spot throw-ins.
[/B][/QUOTE]

By this sort of reasoning, the ending of the throwin definition only applies to throwins where there is no kick since it doesn't mention a kick.

It the philosophy of 7.5.7 that applies, not the actual case.

Typical.

A foul can be good defense.

Knocking the ball OOB can be good defense.

To simplify it to legality is absurd. Team B can do everything within the rules and never stop team A from scoring, by your logic team B was playing good defense.

Get it now?:rolleyes:

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

<font color = red>By this sort of reasoning, the ending of the throwin definition only applies to throwins where there is no kick since it doesn't mention a kick</font>.

It the philosophy of 7.5.7 that applies, not the actual case. [/B][/QUOTE]Great.

So.......if A1 makes an AP throw-in and B1 is the first to touch that throw-in while standing on the sideline, the philosophy of 7.5.7 as interpreted by C. Rust sez that A will get a repeat throw-in and also keep the arrow.

And.....if A1 makes an AP throw-in and A2 first touches the throw-in while standing on a sideline, the philosophy of 7.5.7 as also interpreted by C Rust sez that B will get a throw-in now but A will still retain the arrow.

Or....if A1 is making an AP throw-in and a teammate runs OOB to get a pass along the line from him, the philosophy of 7.5.7 sez that B gets a throw-in now but A will still retain the arrow.

Right? Because the penalty for those violations are the only consequence of the play....according to you? And the original throw-in by A1 can't end according to you also because the throw-in definition in the rule book doesn't mention those violations above either?

Great philosophy you got there, Camron. I wanna be there when you apply it. :D

Again, I want to point out that the kick violation on a non spot throw-in is a specific exception that applies only to the non spot throw-in. We do not have the liberty of taking specific exception language of the rule book and applying it to "similar" circumstances.

The only time the kicking violation on a throw-in is mentioned with specific instructions of what to do on the next throw-in is when it is on the non-spot throw-in.

Consider a different violation, when A1 leaps from front court, catches the ball and lands in back court. The normal call is a backcourt violation whether the ball orginated in front court or back court. The rules have specific exceptions when the play is a jump ball, a throw-in, or A1 was a defensive player. We do not have the right to say because there are legal exceptions in a specific circumstance, they apply to all circumstances.

Maybe this is an oversight or loophole the rules committee has not considered, maybe they did. But until the specific play is addressed in the casebook or spelled out in the rule book, we must go by what is defined - that the AP throw-in ends when touched by an in bounds player. When that happens, the arrow is switched. The violation of kicking the ball is then penalize and the ensuing throw-in is just a normal spot throw-in.

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

Great.

So.......if A1 makes an AP throw-in and B1 is the first to touch that throw-in while standing on the sideline, the philosophy of 7.5.7 as interpreted by C. Rust sez that A will get a repeat throw-in and also keep the arrow.

And.....if A1 makes an AP throw-in and A2 first touches the throw-in while standing on a sideline, the philosophy of 7.5.7 as also interpreted by C Rust sez that B will get a throw-in now but A will still retain the arrow.

Or....if A1 is making an AP throw-in and a teammate runs OOB to get a pass along the line from him, the philosophy of 7.5.7 sez that B gets a throw-in now but A will still retain the arrow.

Right? Because the penalty for those violations are the only consequence of the play....according to you? And the original throw-in by A1 can't end according to you also because the throw-in definition in the rule book doesn't mention those violations above either?

Great philosophy you got there, Camron. I wanna be there when you apply it. :D [/B][/QUOTE]

Apples and Oranges...

I agree with you on all of these...the touching in your first two cases is itself a legal touch. It is only by the location of the touch that a violation occurs. The throwin is clearly defined to be legal when touched by a player who is OOB....it is an OOB violation.

In the last example, it is a throwin violation by the throwin team...they lose the arrow as a direct result of their violation.

We're talking about team B's violation where the contact with the ball itself is the illegal act.

I await the day an "editorial revision" to the rules confirm my opinion. ;)

Camron, I was with you all the way, but I wanted to be sure, so I emailed Howard with the situation and asked how he wanted it to be called. Here's his answer:

Violation on B1 for kicking the ball
A get the ball for a throw-in because of the violation
Arrow changes and points toward B's basket because the throw-in ended when the ball was touched by B1 Rule 4-42-5 covers this situation.

So I will be calling it this way if that scenario ever should occur. I strongly feel that it's not the intent of the rule, but I will call it the way Howard laid it out.

I don't know who Howard is, but since Texas finally beat OU, we're calling it any way we want.

O golly gee.....

What a surprise.......

Gonna e-mail Mr. Mayo and tell him he's wrong, Camron? :D