Alternating Possession Arrow Change

[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.