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.

Help me understand exactly when to switch the arrow...You switch the arrow when an AP throw-in ends. An AP throw-in ends when the throw-in ends or when the throw-in team violates.

So are you saying the throw-in has ended? The throw-in ends when the passed ball touches an inbounds player.

Is this correct?

Yup- NFHS rule 4-42-5 as already cited.

[/B][/QUOTE]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.

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]

That was my thinking as well. Since the rule specifically states that a violation by the throwing team on an AP throw in results in the loss of the arrow, I deduced that a violation by the defensive team during an AP throw-in would NOT result in the loss of the arrow. This makes sense to me.

Otherwise I would think the rule would state that any violation during an AP throw-in would result in the loss of the arrow. That makes no sense to me.

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.

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.

Is it really "a heck of defensive play" if it's an illegal defensive play? A kick is a violation, so I can't agree that it's a great defensive play and definitely not one that should be rewarded.

I do agree that A had the "opportunity" to complete the throw-in. But, that throw-in opportunity was never completed because of an illegal act by B.

What if B1 simply knocks the ball directly oob? B1 violated. Does A1 retain an AP throw-in? No. The kicking provision (and foul provision) is only mentioned on a throw-in after an awarded basket. No where else is that provision explained. For us to extrapolate and say that applies to AP spot throw-ins is stretching the rules in my opinion.

The difference is, in your scenario, the ball touches a player to end the throw-in, and then a violation occurred. Two separate and distinct acts occurring at different times. In the original scenario, the violation and touching occur simultaneously. So which do you apply first? I don't think my logic is stretching the rules. When the rule states explicitly that a violation by the throwing team on an AP throw-in results in the loss of the arrow, applying the converse scenario seems to make sense to me. If the defense violates during the AP throw-in, there is no loss of the arrow.

Determining if the touch to end the throw-in occurred before the violation occurred - I think that's up for debate. I'm going with the violation on B during the AP throw-in and no loss of the arrow for A.

A does lose an advantage. B would gain the arrow through an illegal act. That is certainly not what is intended. The repeat throwin is no longer an AP throwin since there is a kick that is being penalized.

Rule 6-3: The direction of the possession arrow is reversed immediately after an alternating-possession throw-in ends. An alternating-possession throw-in ends when the throw-in ends or when the throw-in team violates.

Team A only loses the arrow if the throwin ends or if team A violates. The NFHS has established that a kick that is simultaneous with the ending of the throwin is considered to have occured before the throwin ends. Therefore, the throwin has has not ended when complicated by a kick. The kick supercedes the throwin ending.

"An alternating-possession throw-in ends when the throw-in ends or when the throw-in team violates."

So, proof by ommission, an alternating-possession throw-in does not end when the non-throw-in team violates. Therefore the chicken, in this case the kick, came first? I like it.

So, simultaneous violations . . .

1. the old 'you caught the jump, they get the ball and the arrow' was resolved a couple years ago, not by generalization but by fiat.

2. the stretch your temporal imagination simultaneous free throw violation of a defender in early and a shoorter's airball is resolved by saying they happen at the same time

3. the current case . . .

4. what other instances of dueling violations do we encounter?

Camron -- where is this established? I'd like to think you're right, but I also would like to see it in print.

Nice theory.

Unfortunately, you don't have a rules citation of any kind to back it up though, do you?

You can't <i>supercede</i> any rule without accompanying rules language to do so. Rule 6-3 that you cited above sez that the AP arrow changes when the throw-in ends. Rule 4-42-5 as cited several times already sez the throw-in ends when it touches an in-bounds player other than the thrower. There are <b>NO</b> written exceptions listed anywhere that I know of that <i>supercedes</i> these particular rules citations. Theories don't <i>supercede</i> anything, Camron.

Rules rulez!

Me too.

I can't specifically answer this question, but I did research the AP issue a little more thoroughly. I found the NCAA has clarified the AP throw-in ending and the 'regular' throw-in ending. Here's what the NCAA says...

"An alternating possession throw-in shall end when the throw-in touches or is legally touched by an in bounds player other than the thrower-in..." The legally touched portion is important. The kick violation would not be a legal touch, therefore, the AP throw-in has not ended and the arrow is not reversed.

"A throw-in shall end when the passed ball is controlled by an inbounds player." Controlled by an inbounds player...the kick violation is not control, so the throw-in has not ended.

With these definitions, I'd say the arrow is not switched on the kicking violation. No legal touch, no control.

Any other comments?

<EM>*7.5.7 SITUATION B: Team A scores a field goal. B1 picks up the ball after the made basket, then proceeds out of bounds to start the throw-in process. B1 runs along the end line out of bounds while attempting to find an open teammate for the throw-in. Immediately after B1 releases the throw-in pass, the ball is kicked by A2 (a) near the end line; or (b) near the division line. Ruling: A2 has violated by kicking the ball. In (a), Team B will be awarded a throw-in and retain the right to run the end line on the ensuing throw-in. In (b), Team B will put the ball in play at a designated spot nearest the violation.
</EM>
The ONLY way this case can be reconciled with the ending of the throwin is to consider kick to occur first. If the end of the throwin were to apply, the penalty for a kick would be a spot throwin. This is exactly the question at hand. When a throwin ends with a violation, the violation, according to 7.5.7 happens before the throwin ends.

Apples and oranges.

There was a provision put in to keep A from losing the advantage of running the end line on a violation by B. By doing this the type of throw-in remains the same after the violation.

On an AP throw-in it is a spot throw-in. The violation does not take the possession away from A, which is what the arrow gave them, the arrow served it's purpose and by rule the AP throw-in ended on the kick. The throw-in remains a spot throw-in, A remains in possession, and team B is not gaining a possession through a violation.

The background of rule 7-5-7, is to prevent the kicker from getting the advantage of making the end line throw-in a "spot" throw-in, instead of a "run the end line" throw in. If the kicker was near a sideline, the throw-in is a "spot" throw-in, at the sideline. The intent of the rule is to let the throwing team retain that advantage, if it would still be an end-line throw-in.

Kicking the ball, is still a "legal" touching of the ball; that is, you would chop the clock in, and proper time could run off the clock. The time may be a few tenths of a second, but some finite time would run off the clock.

The throw-in ended when the ball was touched, even by the kicker, and the arrow should be changed.

I think....

You are on this like a robin on a worm
 

If, in the AP throw-in situation, B5 steps out of bounds at any time up to but not including the moment A1's throw-in hits a player in bounds . . . violation for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason, right? Does not Team A get the ball for a non-AP throw in and, because the AP throw-in did not end, does not Team A also retain the arrow?

Ought our thinking change as the violation (kick) and the touch of the ball inbounds approach each other in time until there is no perceptible distance between the events?

Saying that "Rule 6-3 that you cited above sez that the AP arrow changes when the throw-in ends. Rule 4-42-5 as cited several times already sez the throw-in ends when it touches an in-bounds player other than the thrower." asks us to treat a more complex situation as though it were exactly equivalent to a simpler one.

Decision by analogy stands. This is what 'the committee' would want, if they ever got around to cleaning up the rules.

Wow, this sure has been complicated for no reason.

6-3-4
The direction of the possession arrow is reversed immediately after an alternating-possession throw-in ends. An alternating-possession throw-in ends when the throw-in ends or when the throw-in team violates.

4-41-5
The throw-in ends when the passed ball touches, or is touched by, an inbounds player other than the thrower.

Notice that 4-41-5 does not say "...when the passed ball LEGALLY touches..." The arrow is switched in cases when the kick occurs.

The running the endline situation is a completely separate issue that's addressed by a specific rule and case plays.

As BZ said, apples to oranges.

As JR said....

Rules rulez!

I agree with your logic based on the rules referenced. I still think the defense is rewarded for the kicking violation, but that's just my opinion.

I asked the original question and I asked for an NFHS ruling, but I'll offer NCAA rule 4-65-5..."A throw-in shall end when the passed ball is controlled by an in-bounds player."

Because the NCAA rule specifically calls for control before the throw-in ends, would you agree the arrow would not be switched under NCAA rules? There would be no control if the first touching was a kicking violation.

I, too, think the defense is rewarded for violating, but I don't think there's rules justification for calling it any other way. Yet another example of how the rule book is poorly written. What are we up to now, 10, maybe 12 things that need re-writing?

No.

6-3-2.

It doesn't have to say legally touched
 

You can say the throw-in ended just like you can say it's spinach and the hell with it, but that is oversimplifying the situation. It's not clear that the throw-in event supercedes the violation of kicking the ball. There is no answer in the rules.

You're right. You can't oversimplify it because it doesn't get any simplier.

AP throw-in.

Throw-in pass is touched by a player on the floor.

Therefore, the throw-in ends.

The AP arrow is changed.

Team A gets the ball for a throw-in because Team B violated.

That's the correct ruling, whether you or anybody else, likes it or not.

Re: It doesn't have to say legally touched
 

Unfortunately, there is an answer in the rules. The throw-in ends when the ball is touched. Period. I don't like it, either, but there's no getting around it.

Why is a kick any different than B1 deflecting the ball OOB with his/her hand?

B1 is not gaining an advantage, they played good defense or A1 made a poor throw-in pass, but in either case neither A1 nor B1 did anything to keep or lose the right to the arrow.

A kick is different because it is, in itself, illegal. a deflection isn't. See the difference?

Re: Re: It doesn't have to say legally touched
 

What did the arrow initially give team A?

Possession of the ball.

Did B1's kick take that away from team A?

Nope.

How is a kick different than B1 knocking the ball OOB with his/her hand? Do you want to give A the ball back plus the next AP throw-in on that play too?

Perhaps we need the official to judge if the violation was caused by good defense or just a bad pass, before we switch the arrow?:rolleyes:

The results are the same, it's a violation and the other team gets a spot throw-in.

A kick is not so heinous an act to warrant losing the next AP throw-in. It's good defense, period.

Nope, with regards to this rule, there's no difference.

Again, if the throw-in rule said "The throw-in ends when the ball is LEGALLY touched inbounds," the situation would be different. But it doesn't. :p

It doesn't seem reasonable to me that the results should be the same. I mean, this isn't a huge deal, really, but it's one of those darn little pebbles in the shoes.

Why do you presume that what's said
 

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?

Re: Why do you presume that what's said
 

How can you kick it without touching it? One cannot happen first, since they are the same thing.

Why should the act of kicking the ball cost team B the next AP possession? What you are arguing is that A should be entitled to an extra possession. A possession they got from the arrow, and did not lose because of the kicking violation. Seems like a pretty extreme penalty for playing defense with no advantage gained.

What are the rules that we are mindful of them?
 

The following refers to forward-chaining logic - logic which is data-driven. The opposite, backward-chaining is so-called goal-driven logic. The 'rules' of basketball apply both systems willy-nilly. I am sympathetic towards those who would like there to be an answer to every 'situation' - but, unsurprisingly, there isn't.

----------------

A number of conflict resolution strategies are typically used to decide which rule to fire. These include:

Don't fire a rule twice on the same data. We don't want to keep on adding to working memory.

Fire rules on more recent working memory elements before older ones. This allows the system to follow through a single chain of reasoning, rather than keeping on drawing new conclusions from old data.

Fire rules with more specific preconditions before ones with more general preconditions. This allows us to deal with non-standard cases. If, for example, we have a rule ``IF (bird X) THEN ADD (flies X)'' and another rule ``IF (bird X) AND (penguin X) THEN ADD (swims X)'' and a penguin called tweety, then we would fire the second rule first and start to draw conclusions from the fact that tweety swims.

These strategies may help in getting reasonable behaviour from a forward chaining system, but the most important thing is how we write the rules. They should be carefully constructed, with the preconditions specifying as precisely as possible when different rules should fire. Otherwise we will have little idea or control of what will happen.

Thanks, Alison . . .

Re: Re: Why do you presume that what's said
 

Of course you can't kick it without touching it. So, how do you decide which comes first, the chicken or the egg, the violation or the termination of the free-throw? You need a rule. I don't think we have one. We do have a rule that Cameron Rust has suggested is decided to resolve a similar, though not identical, situation. Perhaps it shows what the rule would be if 'they' get around to making one.

A is not going to get an 'extra' possession. They never finished the one they had, due to B's violation - so they'll get to finish it later, if in fact the chance comes again.

If it doesn't, would that be unfair? It would take some serious backward-chaining, 'goal-oriented' rules to decide that! It's probably not very decidable.

Re: Why do you presume that what's said
 

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.

Say what?

Deflecting the ball OOB <b>isn't</b> illegal? It isn't a violation?

Rule 9-3-1 seems to say something completely different.

That's a basic, Juulie. You're over-thinking this one. "What-ifs" and rationalizations won't work when you have clear rules language. The relevant rules being discussed aren't in any way ambiguous.

Re: What are the rules that we are mindful of them?
 

What color is the sky in your world?

Sheer freaking bafflegab!

I know the rules aren't ambiguous, and I'm not arguing about the interp. I know the rule, and I'll enforce it. I just don't like it.

Re: Re: Why do you presume that what's said
 

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.

Well.....Tweety the freaking penguin and his brother X Penguin and his sister Alison Penguin say that you damn well better like that rule. Or else! :D

http://www.sodamnfunny.com/Animation...guinsdance.gif

Re: Re: Re: Why do you presume that what's said
 

Please explain how you can have a kick without a touch.

tia.

Please explain how you can have a kick without a touch.

[/B][/QUOTE]Tsk, tsk, tsk.....

He's already explained that. The Laws of Physics don't apply to penguins named Tweety.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do you presume that what's said
 

"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 electron’s 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'.

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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do you presume that what's said
 

:rolleyes: 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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do you presume that what's said
 

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?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do you presume that what's said
 

That's a double negative, so you're saying:

"there is basis in the rules to say that a live ball does become dead when intentionally kicked."

That's a true statement. What's your point?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do you presume that what's said
 

In the sense that the AP throw-in is ended regardless of whether a kick occurs or not.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do you presume that what's said
 

I'm trying to stay away from the disagreement on kick first vs. touch first and get back to the original play.

Your statement "An AP throw-in ends on any touch under both nfhs & ncaa rules." OK, I'll accept that. But explain this part of the NCAA rule...6.3.2 "An alternating possession throw-in shall end when the throw-in touches or is LEGALLY touched by an inbounds player other than the thrower-in..." (emphasis mine)

Why does the rule say touches or is legally touched? Why add legally touched if the throw-in ends on any touch? If the throw-in ends on any touch (legal or illegal), why add the part about a legal touch?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do you presume that what's said
 

Good question Red. I wasn't in the room when the rule was written, but if I were to guess I would say at some point "touched" vs "legally touched" became an issue and it was put in that way.

However, my job is to apply the rule as written so the wording to me is quite plain - touched legally or not the AP throw-in is ended.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do you presume that what's said
 

Right. If you apply the rule governing a kick first, the ball is dead and the throw-in didn't end. You - and I, actually - would prefer to apply the rule governing the throw-in first. Throw-in ends, then kick happens. Ball to Team A for a spot throw-in. But there is no basis in the rules - such as they are - for deciding which rule to apply first when these particular events, touch and kick, happen simultaneously.

There are probably other such similar situations. Rule 'interaction' has apparently not been considered for ever possible instance. They should. That's why they get the big bucks.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do you presume that what's said
 

"I'm trying to stay away from the disagreement on kick first vs. touch first and get back to the original play."

Which is where the matter of kick first vs. touch first resides.

Personally I think that it's all Tweety the Penguin's fault. Never did like the little sh!t.

He cheats on exams too.

A kick most certainly is NOT good defense. If it were, we'd award the ball to the defending team.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do you presume that what's said
 

It sure is amusing how the very same people (not necessarily refering to you, Dan) will use the "call it as its written" when it agrees their side of the debate but will call it how they "think it should be" when that is in line with their point of view.

There are many here who belive that a player should be called for a block simply by being contacted while OOB. However, that rule, as written says no such thing...only that such a player doesn't have LGP. Yet, they'll call it a block in spite of what is written in the rule.

The primary factor that is lacking in those sorts of arguments is one of the basics of officiation: knowing the PURPOSE and INTENT of a rule. A deeper understanding of the rule than what is in black and white.

Like yourself? You sound like the proverbial pot to me.

There's no gray area with regards to this play. It is black and white. You don't agree with it, therefore, you have a deeper understanding.

Right.

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

No, I have no problem at all with being lumped with the folks who say call it as it's written for some plays but lumped with others who say call it as it should be for others.

Ya see, I kinda like doing this stuff, and I do what I can to keep doing it.

>>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 never understood the confusion on this. The violation was for "possession," it was for grasping or holding the ball when tossed (whatever the specific word is). It wasn't a "possession" because the ball becomes dead immediately.

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

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?

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.:D 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.;)

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.

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

"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.

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

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.

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

Welcome to the Wonderful World of Tweety the Penguin. :D

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. :D

You have determined, by looking into your heart?
 

"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.