Foul during AP Throw-in

[WhistlesAndStripes]

There is a held ball. A has the possession arrow. During the ensuing arrow, A5, out on the court, commits a pushing foul before the ball is thrown in. No one is in bonus. Team B gets the ball for throw in and arrow does NOT change.

Same as above, except, instead of a foul, A is whistled for a throw-in violation when the thrower, A1, steps over the boundary line before releasing the ball. Team B gets the ball for throw-in and the arrow DOES change.

What is the reasoning behing why the arrow changed for a violation, but not for a foul, by the team throwing in the ball?

[Lotto]

That's what the rules tell us to do?

Seriously, though, a throw-in violation is something that has to do with the throw-in, whereas a foul is a separate act.

[JRutledge]

Look at Rule 6-4-5.

The arrow does not change when either team fouls during an AP throw-in. Do not complicate the situation. It just happens that is the way the rule is written.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Because it is a silly rule.

The team should lose the arrow if it fouls OR violates during the AP throw-in. Just my silly opinion.


The current rationale is that an AP throw-in ends when the ball is touched inbounds or the throwing team violates. Since the arrow is reversed when the throw-in ends, we have a change for a violation.

However a foul is not one of the ways listed that the AP throw-in ends. The best I can say is that the throw-in process is interrupted. Since the AP throw-in didn't end, the arrow is not reversed.

As I wrote above the rules committee should change this by adding "or fouls" to the end of 6-4-4.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Because it is a silly rule.

The team should lose the arrow if it fouls OR violates during the AP throw-in. Just my silly opinion.


The current rationale is that an AP throw-in ends when the ball is touched inbounds or the throwing team violates. Since the arrow is reversed when the throw-in ends, we have a change for a violation.

However a foul is not one of the ways listed that the AP throw-in ends. The best I can say is that the throw-in process is interrupted. Since the AP throw-in didn't end, the arrow is not reversed.

As I wrote above the rules committee should change this by adding "or fouls" to the end of 6-4-4.

Keep it up. I'll vote for you.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Because it is a silly rule.

The team should lose the arrow if it fouls OR violates during the AP throw-in. Just my silly opinion.

The current rationale is that an AP throw-in ends when the ball is touched inbounds or the throwing team violates. Since the arrow is reversed when the throw-in ends, we have a change for a violation.

Nope, the current rationale is that you don't penalize a team twice if it commits a foul or violation. Each act carries it's own separate penalty. Adding an AP loss is double jeopardy.

Thinking otherwise is silly, thilly. Really.

[Kelvin green]

I agree with JR. Its a double whammy!

what you have to remember that a team is entitled to a throw-in under the AP rule. It is not an AP throw-in.

A throw-in is not a throw-in until it is complete (read that ended in the rule book) Since they did not complete their Throw-in the arrow stays with the team until they get the throw-in. This is the same with a foul, a T, etc.

Had one the other night. JUmp, foul on A, The table kept the arrow the right way (towards A) and then all the sudden changed it after we went down the floor. WE had another jump ball and we fixed the arrow and played. Not that difficult.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Nope, the current rationale is that you don't penalize a team twice if it commits a foul or violation. Each act carries it's own separate penalty. Adding an AP loss is double jeopardy.

Thinking otherwise is silly, thilly. Really.

But it is double jeopardy if they penalize a violation by both taking away the ball and the arrow, isn't it? I know that's not the logic that's being used, but I think either way could be rational. They just happened to settle on the one that's there.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by rainmaker

But it is double jeopardy if they penalize a violation by both taking away the ball and the arrow, isn't it?

Exactly. The violation is double penalized, but the foul is not. That is what is silly.

Either make both loss of the ball and keep the arrow or both loss of the ball and the arrow.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Nope, the current rationale is that you don't penalize a team twice if it commits a foul or violation. Each act carries it's own separate penalty. Adding an AP loss is double jeopardy.

Thinking otherwise is silly, thilly. Really.

JR:

Well said. Keep up the good work.

MTD, Sr.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

JR:

Well said. Keep up the good work.

MTD, Sr.

I hope you're joking.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

I hope you're joking.

Joking about what?

MTD, Sr.

[RookieDude]

Glad to see others up at this early hour...I'm "working", what are you guys' excuses?

MTD...JR stated both FOULS and VIOLATIONS are penalized twice...I don't know if he had a typo or what, but, I don't think he meant it the way it came out. (I'm sure he will clarify for us later)

As stated...during an AP TI...a team does not lose the AP arrow on a FOUL...but, does lose the AP arrow on a VIOLATION.

Some are saying they want both the foul and the violation to be penalized equally during an AP TI. (Either keep the arrow or lose the arrow for both)

I kinda like it the way it is...just my opinion.





[Edited by RookieDude on Jan 17th, 2006 at 05:50 AM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by RookieDude

MTD...JR stated both FOULS and VIOLATIONS are penalized twice...I don't know if he had a typo or what, but, I don't think he meant it the way it came out. (I'm sure he will clarify for us later)

As stated...during an AP TI...a team does not lose the AP arrow on a FOUL...but, does lose the AP arrow on a VIOLATION.

Your right; my answer was vague. Clarification:

If a team commits a foul, there are standard penalties assigned to that foul--- that penalty might be FT's for the other team, loss of possession, etc. If the throwing team commits a foul during an AP throw-in, the penalty for that foul is applied exactly the same as if the foul had been committed under any other circumstances during the game. Iow, you penalize the fouling team during an AP by giving their opponents either FT's or possession(or both if the foul was intentional/flagrant). That concept holds for both the throwing and defensive teams also. If you take an AP possession away from the throwing team also, you would be penalizing the throwing team twice for the same foul. That's my point. You wouldn't dream of also taking an AP away from the defensive team if they fouled during that AP throw-in, would you? The bottom line is that when a foul is committed on an AP possession now, that foul is treated exactly the same as any other foul committed during the game, with no additional penalties being added.

The FED used exactly the same logic and concept in regards to throw-ins too. The penalty for a violation committed by the throwing team during any throw-in is the loss of that particular throw-in. That's the normal penalty for all throw-ins. If that particular throw-in happened to be an AP throw-in, then they have lost that particular AP throw-in. Losing the arrow is just part of the normal penalty,iow. The loss of the arrow just means that they lost that throw-in by violating. The normal penalty for any throw-in was applied in this case also.

Put them together, you should see that the FED is just being consistent in both cases- fouls and violations during an AP throw-in- by simply applying the penalty that is normally assigned to each. And that's where I disagee with Nevada's thinking that the FED isn't being consistent or fair.

[ChuckElias]

Just bring back the jump ball, for crying out loud. In NCAA, how many do you really get in a game? Three, at the most. I wouldn't even mind it in varsity HS games, although some of the girls games in my area would take a while. . .