Alternating Possession Arrow Change

assignmentmaker · #11 (**permalink**) Sat Oct 08, 2005, 05:38pm

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'.

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?