Alternating Possession Arrow Change

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

O golly gee.....

What a surprise.......

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

Actually, Jurr, Camron could get away with it. He's very well respected in our association, and he and Howard have a good working relationship. Camron won't change Howard's mind, though...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Actually, Jurr, Camron could get away with it. He's very well respected in our association, and he and Howard have a good working relationship. Camron won't change Howard's mind, though...

Well, Juulie, as I understand it, Howard Mayo is the PBOA Commissioner and the rules interpreter for the Oregon IAABO Board- 183. Iow, he's pretty much the guy who responsible for giving you the definitive rules interpretations out there, right?

So...the question really is....Will Howard's answer change Camron's mind?

[blindzebra]

This amazes me still.

What purpose does the AP arrow serve?

It gives the team with the arrow the ball that has the arrow in a situation of a held ball, stuck ball, dual OOB violation, double foul/technical without team control, or accidental whistle without team control...I think I got them all. The entire point is to award possession.

In our situation we just had one of those and team A HAD the arrow.

The kicking of the ball,BY RULE, ends the throw-in and switches the arrow. The purpose of the arrow was served, because it established possession and that possession WAS NOT LOST by the kick.

Team B will still need another AP situation to use the arrow. By not switching you are actually taking a potential possession away from team B. A pretty strict penalty for a play that is really no different than knocking the ball OOB with any other part of the body.

[Camron Rust]

Very well. While I disagree that the rule is "clear", I'll concede the ruling and reverse the arrow should it ever occur. I never denied that it was not a possibility, just that it was illogicial and there was support for my position. Thank you for the debate...it really caused me to think about the situation.

[assignmentmaker]

"The kicking of the ball,BY RULE, ends the throw-in and switches the arrow"

No, this is what a kick does:

9-4: Kick . . . Penalty: The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out of bounds spot nearest the violation.

If the ball is dead, the throw-in cannot have ended.

If, on the other hand, you consider the throw-in to have ended first, then we get your result.

If you want to apply both rules simultaneously, you can't, they are not mutually compatible.

Welcome to teleology. Pick the result you want, then insist that the rules be applied in theorder which produces that result.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
"The kicking of the ball,BY RULE, ends the throw-in and switches the arrow"

No, this is what a kick does:

9-4: Kick . . . Penalty: The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out of bounds spot nearest the violation.

If the ball is dead, the throw-in cannot have ended.

If, on the other hand, you consider the throw-in to have ended first, then we get your result.

If you want to apply both rules simultaneously, you can't, they are not mutually compatible.

Welcome to teleology. Pick the result you want, then insist that the rules be applied in theorder which produces that result.

This troll is getting pretty old by now, maybe it's time to apply your skills to a new thread.

We've already determined that a kick requires, by definition, a touch.

The throw-in ends on a touch. Not just a legal touch. Any touch.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
"The kicking of the ball,BY RULE, ends the throw-in and switches the arrow"

No, this is what a kick does:

9-4: Kick . . . Penalty: The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out of bounds spot nearest the violation.

If the ball is dead, the throw-in cannot have ended.

If, on the other hand, you consider the throw-in to have ended first, then we get your result.

If you want to apply both rules simultaneously, you can't, they are not mutually compatible.

Welcome to teleology. Pick the result you want, then insist that the rules be applied in theorder which produces that result.

Welcome to the Wonderful World of Tweety the Penguin.

[Dan_ref]

hey JR, do you agree with me that if crosby had not been in CF last night shef makes the catch? not saying it's his fault, the kid's doing good...just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

hey JR, do you agree with me that if crosby had not been in CF last night shef makes the catch? not saying it's his fault, the kid's doing good...just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

No, I think Bernie still has enough legs left that he woulda got to that one. Now whether Bernie also mighta backed off and let Sheff go get it is debatable. The usual rule of thumb is the center fielder calls the play. Moot point anyway. If you can't hit with men on base, you lose.

Why do I get a sinking feeling every time I see Mussina trotting out there in a big game? Personally, I'd have preferred Small. Mussina just isn't a big-game pitcher.

Gotta be changes. That is one flawed ball club, no matter how many all-stars are on it. Just terrible defensively. Need a cf and a 1B, and they haveta make Clank the SteroidMonkey a permanent dh.

This just in: Giambi's new supplier was just named Comeback Druggist of the Year.

[assignmentmaker]

"We've already determined that a kick requires, by definition, a touch."

Where does it say that in the rules? It doesn't. It's just so . . . intuitive. Sure, a kick requires a touch, but if you apply the penalty for a kick first, the touch is irrelevant.

[assignmentmaker]

"This troll is getting pretty old by now, maybe it's time to apply your skills to a new thread."

Maybe it's time for you to watch your mouth.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
"We've already determined that a kick requires, by definition, a touch."

Where does it say that in the rules? It doesn't. It's just so . . . intuitive. Sure, a kick requires a touch, but if you apply the penalty for a kick first, the touch is irrelevant.

You said it yourself: Either one views the kick as being first, or one views the touch as being first. The powers that be have already stated how the play is to be viewed. Regardless of the teleology, regardless of my view, your view or anyone else's view, the committee has made it clear how the play must be called. You can't argue your way out of a direct command. Even Camron agrees that we must do it "their" way, and getting philosophical isn't going to change that. If you want to change it, go to the Rules Committee. Arguing it here does no good at all.

[assignmentmaker]

"You said it yourself: Either one views the kick as being first, or one views the touch as being first. The powers that be have already stated how the play is to be viewed. Regardless of the teleology, regardless of my view, your view or anyone else's view, the committee has made it clear how the play must be called. You can't argue your way out of a direct command. Even Camron agrees that we must do it "their" way, and getting philosophical isn't going to change that. If you want to change it, go to the Rules Committee. Arguing it here does no good at all."

Where specifically in the rules does it say that this 'situation' is to be interpreted (that is, resolved) as you suggest? Just tell me where and I will memorize the citation! I am not being purposefully obtuse about this . . .

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
"You said it yourself: Either one views the kick as being first, or one views the touch as being first. The powers that be have already stated how the play is to be viewed. Regardless of the teleology, regardless of my view, your view or anyone else's view, the committee has made it clear how the play must be called. You can't argue your way out of a direct command. Even Camron agrees that we must do it "their" way, and getting philosophical isn't going to change that. If you want to change it, go to the Rules Committee. Arguing it here does no good at all."

Where specifically in the rules does it say that this 'situation' is to be interpreted (that is, resolved) as you suggest? Just tell me where and I will memorize the citation! I am not being purposefully obtuse about this . . .

There are already enough references in this thread to figure this out. Even Camron and me agree this is the official interp, although we disagree with it. You're being obtuse, whether or not it's purposeful.

[Smitty]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
"You said it yourself: Either one views the kick as being first, or one views the touch as being first. The powers that be have already stated how the play is to be viewed. Regardless of the teleology, regardless of my view, your view or anyone else's view, the committee has made it clear how the play must be called. You can't argue your way out of a direct command. Even Camron agrees that we must do it "their" way, and getting philosophical isn't going to change that. If you want to change it, go to the Rules Committee. Arguing it here does no good at all."

Where specifically in the rules does it say that this 'situation' is to be interpreted (that is, resolved) as you suggest? Just tell me where and I will memorize the citation! I am not being purposefully obtuse about this . . .

Purposefully or not, you are being obtuse. One of the reasonable conclusions one could make is that a kick constitutes a touch. That is reasonable. You should contact your local representative from the rules committee and pose the same scenario and see how they expect it to be called. This dead horse is beaten beyond recognition.