AP Arrow

[boiseball]

definitely think the rule should be made simpler on this one; just do not see any good reason for making it different than what everyone already thinks it is. Everyone thinks it switches as soon as the ball is handed to the thrower and I just do not see why it makes sense to draw the distinction. I cannot explain it better than Snaqwell and rules are always better when they are simple and straightforward; a nuance that does not bring a benefit, is just unnecessary confusion.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Snaqs - Someone should dig up why the IGHSAU does it this way and get their reasoning. I liked it that way too.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

Snaqs - Someone should dig up why the IGHSAU does it this way and get their reasoning. I liked it that way too.

Maybe that's where I get it from. My original assigner in the Des Moines area told me he preferred it that way, too, and his reasoning is where I get mine from.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Big2Cat

6.4.5 Situation A: Team A is awarded the ball for a throw-in under the alternating procedure. A1 commits a violation.
Ruling: B’s ball for a throw-in because of the violation. In addition, the possession arrow is reversed and is pointed towards B’s basket. Team B will have the next throw-in opportunity under the alternating procedure. Team A has lost its opportunity by virtue of the violation. A violation by Team A during an alternating-possession throw-in is the only way a team loses its turn under the procedure.

Comment: If a foul by either team occurs before an alternating-possession throw-in ends, the foul is penalized as required and play continues as it normally would, but the possession arrow is not reversed. The same team will still have the arrow for the next alternating-possession throw-in. The arrow is reversed when an alternating-possession throw-in ends. (6-4-4)

Security breach! It looks as if Big2Cat somehow obtained my password.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

They had their throwin; it resulted in a foul.
You're right, it's not a reason. It's not my reason either.
But, I'm tilting at windmills.

If they never threw the ball, how did they have a throw-in?

Originally Posted by boiseball

definitely think the rule should be made simpler on this one; just do not see any good reason for making it different than what everyone already thinks it is.

Now that makes sense. While we're at it, let's make it:

3 seconds when an offensive player is trying to rebound the ball.
Traveling when the thrower moves his feet.
Double dribble when a player fumbles the ball.
GT when a defender slaps the backboard.

Need I go any further?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

If they never threw the ball, how did they have a throw-in?

They have a throwin. The throwin starts when the ball is handed to the thrower.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

They have a throwin. The throwin starts when the ball is handed to the thrower.

And the throw-in ends....when?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And the throw-in ends....when?

When the rules say it does.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

When the rules say it does.

Right, when the ball touches or is touched by another player in or OOB.

And if the foul occurs before that, did that throw-in ever end?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Right, when the ball touches or is touched by another player in or OOB.

And if the foul occurs before that, did that throw-in ever end?

No, but if the violation by the throwing team does...

I think that's the preceived inconsistency he's talking about, and I assume that's a part of the reason that governing body does it this way.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Right, when the ball touches or is touched by another player in or OOB.

And if the foul occurs before that, did that throw-in ever end?

No, but only because the rule says so. I'd like to see it changed. Now, has anyone seen the giant windmill?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, but only because the rule says so. I'd like to see it changed. Now, has anyone seen the giant windmill?

Here you go.

Believe it or not, I can (slightly) understand what you're trying to accomplish. But, it's taken me this long to understand the Fed's way of thinking, so imagine how long it would take for me to change that now?