Help. Need rulings based on NFHS.

1 - Team A making a throw-in resulting from an alternating possession throw-in. A1 throws the ball in where it is immediately kicked by B1. A1 makes throw-in after kicking violation. What happens to the arrow? Set toward Team B or remain toward Team A?

2 - Team A making a throw-in resulting from an alternating possession throw-in. A1 throws the ball in where it is immediately kicked by B1. With A1 holding the ball out of bounds for the throw-in, A2 fouls B2. B2 makes a throw-in after the foul. What happens to the arrow? Set toward Team B or remain toward Team A?

OK now I'm gonna change my mind.

1. Arrow points to B.
2. Arrow points to A.

[Edited by Smitty on Oct 6th, 2005 at 07:46 PM]

I believe that the AP throw-in in each case ends witht he kick violation, so the arrow is set to B both times. The throw-in after the kick is a spot throw in after a violation.

That's my guess, anyways.

Rule 4-41 Art 5 (2004-05): The throw-in ends when the passed ball touches, or is touched by, an inbounds player other than the thrower.

So in both cases Arrow points to B after the Kick ball violation by team B.

I'm trying to find a cite to say that these three are wrong, but I guess it's me that's wrong. It doesn't make sense, though. If B violates, A loses the arrow? How is that a punishment for B? Why are we punishing A?

I had thought the same thing when I originally posted, and then I changed my answer. When the throwing in team violates during the throw-in, they lose the arrow. I used the logic that if the defensive team violates during the throw-in (the kicked ball), the throw in team therefore does not lose the arrow. I have found nothing that explicitly says that, but logic sort of prevails for me.

Sure the throwin has ened by the kick. However, the rules are written as if uncomplicated by other issues. In this case, two things occur simultaneously. In cases of simultaneous events, one is often assumed to have occurred first. For example:

<OL><LI>When jumper B5 grabs the ball on the jump, B5 is called for a violation. The ball is given to A and the arrow to B. The violation is considered to occur before the possession.

<LI>When, after a made basket, B3, who is near the endline, kicks the throwin a violation is called on team B and team A retains the right to run the endline. The violation is effectively considered to have occured before the throwin ended. (If the throwin had ended prior to the kick, team A would not have retained the run of the endline).
</OL>
So, which happens first in this case? I'd say, based on the two examples I listed, that a violation is assumed to occur first when it is simultaneous with another event that is not an infraction. The arrow should remain unchanged in both cases. The throwin for the kick supercedes the prior reason for a throwin and what happens during it no longer have any bearing on the arrow.

A had their chance . . .
 

A had their chance to get the ball inbounds successfully and didn't.

Whoa. I like what you have to say . . .
 

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 can't find an answer in the Casebook . . .

Is this another reasonable possibility, Mr. Rust
 

6.4.3 Situation B speaks of 'Simultaneous Violations'. In this case it's a matter of B1 violating the lane restriction during a free throw and the shooter then missing everything, violating a different component of the free throw requirements. These are said to constitute a simultaneous violation and, unless another free throw follows, play resumes with an alternating-possession throw-in.

And, you gotta admit, in the temporal domain, these two violations are a LOT less simultaneous than is the kick of an A-P throw-in both ending the throw-in and being a violation in and of itself.

In the free throw situation, true, the two violations are violations of separate provisions of the _same_ rule, while in the A-P throw-in & kicked ball situation, that is not the case . . . perhaps that's the key to a pattern?

Camron, if the FED wanted to complicate a rule with "other issues", then they woulda written another rule to cover those "other issues". In this case, they didn't. There is no rules justification that I know of that will allow you to let team A keep the arrow. Cingram posted the relevant and applicable rule, albeit from last year's rule book. R4-41-5 from last year is now R4-42-5 this year. The throw-in ended with the kick by B. You penalize the kick as per R9-4 and switch the arrow as per R6-4-4 and R4-42-5. There are no rules extant that I know of that will allow you to do otherwise.

Rules rulez! :)

I agree that the throwin ends as stated by cingram. No question there.

The cases covering the throwin after the made basket consider the kick to have occured during the throwin in order to allow A to retain the run of the endline. Given that the kick in these cases is considered to occur before the throwin ends, why does it matter if that throwin is, instead, an AP throwin?

Good point.

That language was put in so that the throwing team on a non-spot throw-in doesn't lose a natural advantage because of a defensive violation. On a spot AP throw-in like this one, however, there is NO advantage lost by the throwing team. No matter what, the arrow was gonna be switched to B- either right then if there was no violation or on the repeat throw-in if you make that one an AP throw-in--- and team B was also penalized for the kick, no matter what. If you do let A keep the arrow, they're gaining an unfair advantage. They get a repeat throw-in <b>and</b> an extra AP out of it.

The bottom line though is that it still remains that there is presently no rules language extant that would let you repeat the throw-in and let team A retain the AP also. Right?

For the reasons already stated, switch the arrow towards B's basket immediately. Give ball to A for a non-AP throw-in.

Report the foul and administer it by giving the ball to B for a non-AP throw-in. (Assuming bonus is not in effect.)

The arrow only changes after the team entitled to the arrow completes an AP throw-in or violates during an AP throw-in. Since B's throw-in was the result of a foul and not the result of an AP situation, the arrow does not change. B retains the arrow after the throw-in.

Jurassic, I gotta agree withyou, except that . . .
 

Jurassic, I gotta agree with you, except for your supposition that "if the FED wanted to complicate a rule with "other issues", then they woulda written another rule to cover those "other issues"." You're giving them way too much credit. These are the people who say that 'premeditated' and 'intentional' are not synomyms, the people who in one place define things by what they are and, in the next moment, by what they aren't.

I gotta say I was too easily persuaded by Cameron - but his point - that there could be some generality that would make deducing the correct interpretation for these kinds of situations - deserves to be fully thought out.