AP Arrow

[Adam]

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12

Great example of why it's important to have a properly-instructed table crew. A lot of times because I work in church leagues the folks operating the AP arrow don't know the rules and they switch it when the ball gets handed to the player doing the throw in...

Okay, I can't help it and know I'm vastly out numbered here, but I think this is how the rule should read.

[Ref in PA]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Okay, I can't help it and know I'm vastly out numbered here, but I think this is how the rule should read.

and if A2 gets fouled by B2 they lose the arrow?

Can't agree with that.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Ref in PA

and if A2 gets fouled by B2 they lose the arrow?

Can't agree with that.

I didn't expect you to; no one else does. It's my opinion that the team is entitled to a throwin, not possession. Once the thrower has been given the ball for the throwin, the arrow's job is done. Anything that happens during that throwin is a direct result of the arrow.
Let me put it another way. In your scenario; the foul to against A2 happened because A1 was trying to inbound the ball. If the arrow hadn't given the ball to A, then B2 wouldn't have fouled. The arrow did its job.
Again, I realize I'm outnumbered here.

[Big2Cat]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I didn't expect you to; no one else does. It's my opinion that the team is entitled to a throwin, not possession. Once the thrower has been given the ball for the throwin, the arrow's job is done. Anything that happens during that throwin is a direct result of the arrow.
Let me put it another way. In your scenario; the foul to against A2 happened because A1 was trying to inbound the ball. If the arrow hadn't given the ball to A, then B2 wouldn't have fouled. The arrow did its job.
Again, I realize I'm outnumbered here.

Huh? I don't get it.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I didn't expect you to; no one else does. It's my opinion that the team is entitled to a throwin, not possession. Once the thrower has been given the ball for the throwin, the arrow's job is done. Anything that happens during that throwin is a direct result of the arrow.
Let me put it another way. In your scenario; the foul to against A2 happened because A1 was trying to inbound the ball. If the arrow hadn't given the ball to A, then B2 wouldn't have fouled. The arrow did its job.
Again, I realize I'm outnumbered here.

An idiom here in Italy is "se mio nonno avesse le ruote sarebbe un tram" (if my grandpa had wheels, he would be a streetcar). Don't build up hypotheses: players play and sometimes foul. A throw in is just a play situation.

The arrow entitles the team to a throw in: they have the right to make it. When does a throw in end? There are very good reasons to say that it ends when another player touches the ball or the team violates. A foul is a very different thing.

Nobody is saying that the team has a right to possession: if the other team steals the throw in pass, the arrow gets reversed.

[Adam]

And if a frog had wings.... I know. The difference is that I'm not creating unlikely hypotheticals. Good grief.
I already said I expected disagreement. That's fine. This is just how I see it.

It seems arbitrary to me to reverse the arrow on an offensive violation but not on an offensive foul. To me, the arrow gives the thrower the ball; after that all bets should be off because the arrow did its job. You can't say your punishing the team that got fouled during the throwin because they're still getting the ball that the arrow provided.

This should go without saying, but I'm not out there enforcing it the way I think it should be; I'm enforcing it the way it is.

BTW, had a scorer in a middle school game not change the arrow because the pass was stolen. We corrected him.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's my opinion that the team is entitled to a throwin, not possession.

Then why is it called alternating POSSESSION?

Evenso, if the foul occurs, then they don;t get their throw-in, do they?

Changing the rule for the sake of making it easier isn't a reason.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Then why is it called alternating POSSESSION?

Evenso, if the foul occurs, then they don;t get their throw-in, do they?

Changing the rule for the sake of making it easier isn't a reason.

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.

[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.

[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?