wait just a minute now.....

[Texas Aggie]

Saddle posted what I'm having a problem with: Chuck's reference to the ball being touched by an OOB player. When the throw-in ends has nothing to do with an OOB player, other than a violation (per AP rule). Chuck: what do you mean by an OOB player (however you worded it)?

[Time2Ref]

Texas Aggie,

I think I was reading Chuck's post the same way you were.

But, after Back in the Saddle replied with (cut & paste) NFHS rule 4.42.5, I went back and read Chuck's post again. I believe he is saying the AP arrow should not be changed because AP throw-in was never complete.

See the other thread for complete explanation. (with all applicable rules in one place)

http://www.officialforum.com/showthr...815#post286815

[ChuckElias]

My reference to "inbounds or out of bounds" was based on 7-6-1, which states that the throw-in must touch another player inbounds or OOB before going OOB untouched (similarly in 9-2-2). I had incorrectly assumed that the "or OOB" was also included in the definition of when the throw-in ends. But it's not.

I'm sorry if I've confused people. I'm a little confused myself now. How could the throw-in NOT end if it is caught by a player who has one foot OOB? It's not a throw-in violation, right? B/c the thrower has not violated 9-2-2. Hmmmmm.

So A1 has the ball OOB for an AP throw-in. A1 throws the ball and A3 catches the ball with one foot OOB. We have to switch the arrow here, right? But if we say that the throw-in doesn't end when A3 catches it OOB, then we can't switch the arrow. So why isn't that "or OOB" included in the definition of when the throw-in ends?

I must be missing something obvious.

[FrankHtown]

Let me be a lawyer here for a second..Is the violation by the defense a throw-in violation, or a plane violation? These may be construed as two different things.

If Team A, after a made basket, knocks the ball away, and delays the throw-in, the warning is for delay, not a throw-in violation.

In this instance, play is stopped to give a warning for delay, not a throw-in violation by the defense.

So, I'm stuck in the middle on this one.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
My reference to "inbounds or out of bounds" was based on 7-6-1, which states that the throw-in must touch another player inbounds or OOB before going OOB untouched (similarly in 9-2-2). I had incorrectly assumed that the "or OOB" was also included in the definition of when the throw-in ends. But it's not.

I'm sorry if I've confused people. I'm a little confused myself now. How could the throw-in NOT end if it is caught by a player who has one foot OOB? It's not a throw-in violation, right? B/c the thrower has not violated 9-2-2. Hmmmmm.

So A1 has the ball OOB for an AP throw-in. A1 throws the ball and A3 catches the ball with one foot OOB. We have to switch the arrow here, right? But if we say that the throw-in doesn't end when A3 catches it OOB, then we can't switch the arrow. So why isn't that "or OOB" included in the definition of when the throw-in ends?

I must be missing something obvious.

Maybe it's the early hour, but 7-6-1 makes almost no sense to me. What is the deal with "inbounds or out of bounds?" With the exception of 7-5-7, which is called out as an exception, how can it possibly be legal to throw-in to a player who is OOB? After reading 9.2.2 B I thought maybe it was referring to the throw-in team catching/touching the ball on the OOB side of the plane. But that is called out seperately as well in 7-6-1. So to what does the "or out of bounds" refer?

BTW, the inclusion of "inbounds or out of bounds" as a parenthetical to the phrase "on the court" in both 9-2-2 and 7-6-1 seems to directly contradict the recent FED interpretations of playing the game "on the court" as meaning "within the boundaries" that gave us the infamous foot on the line block, etc.

The AP throw-in rule is similar to 7-5-7 in that they both treat the end of the throw-in and violations as sepearate possible outcomes and explicitly provide for either. In this case, the AP throw-in ends when the violation occurs, reverse the arrow.

[Edited by Back In The Saddle on Feb 3rd, 2006 at 11:56 AM]

[FishinRef]

The anal part of my brain tells me that if you follow EVERY letter of the RuleBook to the tenth degree, then you don't change the arrow. The common-sense side tells me that you punishing Team B twice for a violation that only constitutes a verbal warning. The RuleBook is our ultimate defense and sometimes our bitter demise. I agree with Back-In-The-Saddle. I would change the arrow, and guarantee that not a single player, coach, or fan would question it. That's my story and I'm stickun to it!!!!!!!!

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by FishinRef
The anal part of my brain tells me that if you follow EVERY letter of the RuleBook to the tenth degree, then you don't change the arrow. The common-sense side tells me that you punishing Team B twice for a violation that only constitutes a verbal warning. The RuleBook is our ultimate defense and sometimes our bitter demise. I agree with Back-In-The-Saddle. I would change the arrow, and guarantee that not a single player, coach, or fan would question it. That's my story and I'm stickun to it!!!!!!!!

Please don't confuse my statements above as being in answer to the OP, they are not. I was addressing Chuck's theoretical situation of A1 throwing in to A3 who is touching OOB. In the OP the AP throw-in does not end (recall that the AP throw-in ends when the throw-in ends or the throw-in team violates). So in the OP, you do not change the arrow.

[Ref in PA]

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

6-4-5 "The opportunity to make an alternating-possession throw-in is lost if the throw-in team violates. ..."

In the original play, B1 commits a violation by breaking the plane (9-2-11). The violation penalty is to record the action in the book. The ensuing throw-in by team A is a spot throw-in as a result of the violation by B1 (see the penalty for section 2). In addition, there are special penalties for the boundary violation by B1 (the penalties include instructions for multiple plane violations, dislodging the ball, fouling the thrower).

Therefore, at the end of it all, A retains the arrow.

Next there was some discussion about A1 throwing to A2 who has his foot touching oob. In this case, A2 violated according to 9-2-10. Even though the throw-in did not complete, the throw-in team violated (9-2 is all about throw-in violations). In this case the arrow is switched to B.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Ref in PA
6-4-4 "The direction of the possesion arrow is reversed immediately after an alternating-possession throw-in ends or when the throw-in team violates."

Ok, I didn't look carefully enough. I had in my head that the throw-in team had to commit a throw-in violation. But since A3 violated (by touching the ball while OOB) before the throw-in was complete (by being touched by a player inbounds) Team A loses the arrow. Makes a lot more sense now.

Amazing what you can find if you actually read the rules.