Maybe you'll find this more to your liking then...under the old wording where would you put the ball in play after the kick? At the spot nearest the kick or at the original spot?

Good Question. I am not sure, I guess I would have taken it back out of bounds closest to where the kick happened, I would guess that would just be like if the defensive player knocked the ball out of bounds, you would put it back in play where it went out, so when its kicked you take the ball out closest to where the kick ball happened.

Old rule - correct.
New rule - (by my reading) you'll go back to the original throw-in spot, as the throw-in hasn't ended.

We had this discussion at a rules discussion before the season when we were required to take the new NCAA test. To me it seemed very simple. If the ball is kicked, the ensuing throw-in is awarded because of a violation, so it goes to the nearest spot of the violation. The offense would retain the arrow(I know with the new clarification -- not rule change-- it's easy now.)
I looked at it this way: If the offense violates on an AP throw-in, they lose the ball and the arrow. So why would the defense be rewarded with the arrow when they violate on a throw-in? This is not a rule change, even according to Struckoff. It is just a clarification for the the many officials who lacked the common sense necessary to interpret the rule. The NCAA rule on a throw-in states "legally touched" and there were still plenty of excellent NCAA officials who said they would switch the arrow in their game.

No no no no....
If the kick occurs at the division line, you're gonna take it back to the endline?
The next throw-in is a result of the kick, not the AP. If you go back to the original spot, it's like replaying the AP throw-in. And then the arrow would switch. You must take it out where the kick occurs.
I really don't understand what's hard about this. It's the same principle as a throw-in after a basket.... if the defense kicks the throw-in, the offense retains the right to run the baseline -- the throw-in never ended!!!

Socal, legally touched means exactly that.

A kick - in basketball - is not a legal touch.

btw, your response to Dexter makes no sense.

That's what I was saying...the NCAA rule reads the same as NFHS now does -- legally touched. Yet some officials (NCAA Division 1) said they would switch the arrow anyway. Their "logic" was it would give the offense too much of an advantage to get another throw-in and retain the arrow. But they had no answer for an offensive violation where the defense would get a throw-in and the arrow.

As for my response to Dexter let me simplify....
New and old are the same for a kick (or punch) on an AP throw-in. The new throw-in goes nearest to the kick and the arrow remains unchanged.

I think it's a pretty damn big rule change. Perhaps had the editor written the rule more clearly, it wouldn't have been so 'confusing' to all of us officials out here. :rolleyes:

got it now. I misunderstood Well, we're still disagreeing.

If the throw-in does not end you go back to the original spot. Not to the spot of the kick. You can't go to a new spot and not change the arrow.

If you recall, though, there was a lot of discussion when NFHS first added the "offense still gets to run the baseline" rule in regard to whether a kick violation would have the ball go back underneath.

I'll admit that, right now, all I'm doing is speculating since the actual RULE BOOK hasn't been printed and released. That said, in previous years, I would award the ball at the spot of the kick, as the throw-in had finished, then B1 violated. Now that the kick no longer ends the throw-in, I would assume that we would go back to the original spot of the throw-in as if the throw-in had gone OOB untouched.

My two cents until the books are published.

Yes it would have been helpful. :)
I guess I looked at it from a deductive reasoning standpoint since it it wasn't explicitly spelled out. If the offense can lose the arrow on a violation(spelled out), then the defense can lose the arrow on a violation.

Why not?

Isn't the new throw-in the result of the (kicking) violation? The penalty for a travel, kick or fist violation involves a throw-in nearest the spot of the violation. Granted, most times the ball is kicked right at the throw-in spot, so usually the location is the same. But I thought the reason for this clarification is to say since the AP throw-in was not completed, there would be no arrow change at all, and that the touch/kick is not the same thing as a legal touch that ends the throw-in. The second throw-in is for the violation; you aren't doing the AP throw-in over again, so you use the penalty prescribed for that violation.

Which triggers a question: how can you say that the throw-in ended before the kick? Don't the 2 happen at the same time?

That was the fun part of the discussion - can you "touch" the ball first, then violate by kicking? Or, is the "touch" and the kick one in the same?

Now that the NFHS has made this clarification, we can't have that fun discussion anymore. :(

But, I'm sure we'll find something else to take it's place. :D

Because, as I said, the throw-in has not ended. What provision is there for moving the spot on an un-ended throw-in?

Why was the throw-in not completed?

So, if there's a common foul before the throw-in ends, you're gonna redo the throw-in because it was never completed?!?!
The rationale for the definition of a completed throw-in was to determine when to switch the arrow, not to negate any action that occurs during a throw-in.

Thank you M&M Guy!!! The same reasoning I used with all those NCAA officials and yet it fell on some deaf ears.

Never mind. Good point.

I'm going back to the baseball thread to bother he-who's-name-shall-not-be-mentioned.

Point well taken.

Back in November I started a thread: Where's the Throw-in?
http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=29479
If A2 or B2 is standing OOB when they receive the throw-in pass, is their touch of the ball considered 'legal'?
As was pointed out in that thread, the violation was on the thrower, not the receiver. Thus the 'new' throw-in would come back to the original spot. I think this new rule has implication to that scenario. The violation now is assessed to the receiver. Spot throw-in at that new location.

I'm not sure that is correct. There is still a question of if the receiver "legally" touched the ball while standing OOB. Is his touch legal because he touched the ball with an eligible part of his body (ie didn't kick it) or is his touch illegal because he was standing OOB at the time and thus committed a violation simultaneously with the touch.

Furthermore, is this still a throw-in violation? If so, the ensuing throw-in would still be awarded from the previous spot.

I don't think the rule change has clarified anything about this play at all.

If your touch is a violation, it is not a legal touch. Semantics aside, sometimes we think too much. Call it the way you interpret it until your boss tells you differently.

This part isn't correct. The violation is still on the receiver, but the penalty for this violation requires a new throw-in at the original spot for the team that did not make this catch. Nowhere does it say the violation is on the thrower; especially if B2 is the one making the catch.
The new rule does not address this, at least not as it's been presented.
It does, however, offer a new question.
Scenario:
AP throw-in for A1, who throws the pass.
B2 is standing on the OOB line when he is the first to touch this pass.
We know we have a new throw-in for A1 at the original spot.
Do we switch the arrow?

I don't think we do.