Tie up, then a technical

[Largent]

Situation a friend of mind told me about. We discussed and weren't sure of the answer:


A has the possession arrow, midway through the third quarter. A1 and B1 get tied up and we call a jump ball. Then B1 kicks A1. Whack. Technical Foul on B1. I'm wondering how to administer.

We decided that the arrow would not change because the alternating possession would not end until the throw in ends, but the AP has been superseded by the Technical. So, 2 shots for A. A has a throw in (opposite the table) and A keeps the arrow. Is this right? Also, if the arrow had been B's, would they keep the arrow after A has inbounded for the technical?

Thanks!

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Largent
We decided that the arrow would not change because the alternating possession would not end until the throw in ends, but the AP has been superseded by the Technical. So, 2 shots for A. A has a throw in (opposite the table) and A keeps the arrow. Is this right?

Yup. You nailed it.

Also, if the arrow had been B's, would they keep the arrow after A has inbounded for the technical?

Yes, since B didn't make an AP throw-in. If the throw-in was the result of a single T, then the arrow doesn't change, regardless of which way it's pointing or who makes the throw-in.

[Kelvin green]

Two shots and ball on the T. Arrow stays the same since you did not use the AP rule due to the T

[Larks]

You gotta use it to lose it.

[whistleone]

Not to totally hijack this thread but was the technical treated as a regular technical foul or was it considered flagrant (meaning B1 would be ejected)? Rule 4 tells us that fighting is a flagrant act and includes kicking.

Just wondering and learning my lesson for if/when it happens to me.

[Largent]

I know what you're saying re: a flagrant. I guess the official who called it (it wasn't me) didn't think it was bad enough to warrant an ejection.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Largent
I know what you're saying re: a flagrant. I guess the official who called it (it wasn't me) didn't think it was bad enough to warrant an ejection.

By rule and by definition, if you have a kick (or an attempt to kick) of an opponent, you have fighting, and you MUST eject the offender for a flagrant technical foul.

[TriggerMN]

Originally posted by Largent
Situation a friend of mind told me about. We discussed and weren't sure of the answer:


A has the possession arrow, midway through the third quarter. A1 and B1 get tied up and we call a jump ball. Then B1 kicks A1. Whack. Technical Foul on B1. I'm wondering how to administer.

We decided that the arrow would not change because the alternating possession would not end until the throw in ends, but the AP has been superseded by the Technical. So, 2 shots for A. A has a throw in (opposite the table) and A keeps the arrow. Is this right? Also, if the arrow had been B's, would they keep the arrow after A has inbounded for the technical?

Thanks!

I can't believe this post came two days ago. We had this exact play last night as well! Bizarre!

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by TriggerMN


I can't believe this post came two days ago. We had this exact play last night as well! Bizarre!

I actually had the corollary last week. A had the AP arrow, but violated on the throw-in (damned if I remember what the violation was). We were in the last few seconds of the quarter, and the scorer switched the posession arrow.

Between quarters, my partner and I talked with the table. We were both a bit unsure, but I at least acted confident in the fact that an AP throw-in ended on a violation, and so we went with my interpretation. After the game, my partner said that he thought it switched on a foul but now a violation.

We now both own the rule fully.