Just curious - do you use the shot clock or not in games played by hermaphrodites? :confused:

Thrown In Ramification
 

I think this was touched on earlier in the thread (and i hope the NFHS makes this a case play), but what will happen in this situation under the new rule?

A1 has the ball for an AP throw in. B4 is whistled for a kicked ball violation. The table (a) switches the arrow or (b) does not switch the arrow.

Which is going to be correct? :confused:

I'm traveling to Vegas this weekend, but it seems that I have some research to do when I return. ;) The three NV officials associations used to be part of the CBOA. (You paying attention here Rut! Also some of the members of my NV association work CA games in the Sacramento area and a few of us have even worked CIF postseason games. So not only did we register there, but also worked there.) We left just prior to the start of last season due to the new insurance deal that the CBOA decided to sign with the NFHS. So we used to get the CBOA manual, but did not this past season. Therefore, it is entirely possible that this sentence on page 22 is new and I was not aware of it. I'll have to check. CA may NOW use NCAA rules for its shot clock, whereas they did not before.
PS Your whole quote was not the issue. I granted you the fact that there is a difference on a kicked ball and you clearly stated such. There used to be many other differences which were subtle. For example, could you look in the new book and tell me how the shot clock is handled when a double personal foul occurs with the offensive team in control? That used to be one difference between the NCAA and CBOA shot clock rules.

Choice (b) is correct.

See the NFHS press release announcing the rules changes on the website.

"A change in Rule 4-42-5 adds the word "legally" to the current rule regarding when a throw-in ends. The revised rule will read as follows: "The throw-in ends when the passed ball touches, or is legally touched, by another player who is either inbounds or out of bounds.
In the past, the rule could "reward" a defensive team that committed a violation, such as kicking the ball during a throw-in. With the previous rule, if a throw-in was kicked by the defense, it could cause the offensive team to be disadvantaged from an alternating-possession standpoint. By adding "legally" to the current rule that defines when a throw-in ends, it eliminates this type of situation from happening."

So does anyone know yet whether we'll switch the arrow on A's subsequent throw-in, or will A keep the AP arrow until the next held ball situation because of the kick? Furthermore, does anyone know for certain, or are we just assuming these interpretations?

"Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?"

Sorry...need more coffee this morning.

Chicago (Actually, at that time - Chicago Transit Authority), 1969

You may now return to your regularly-scheduled thread.

And, to keep serious (for just a second), why wouldn't the arrow remain with A? The subsequent throw-in is for the kicking violation; since the AP throw-in was never completed, the arrow should not change.

Think of it this way - let's say there's a common foul on B (no bonus) before the AP throw-in is completed, and the ball will be put back to the same throw-in spot. You wouldn't change the arrow on that resulting throw-in, would you?

That's the way I understand it as well. The first throw in is an AP throw-in. The second one is a throw-in following violation.

The deal we signed was with NASO not NFHS.
The shot clock is not reset on a double foul if there is team control, just like NCAA.

No, I wouldn't.

Just wondering what the rule change will mean in a broader perspective. I usually stay away from discussing/applying "new" rules until I can see how they're actually written into the rulebook and can see how the casebook was updated.

M&M Guy: There is already a rule in place that says a foul committed by either team during AP throw-in does not cause the team to lose the arrow. (Although in my locale, I often feel like I am the only person who knows this rule :cool: )

Since I am at the table alot each winter (and looks like I'll be moreso thiscoming year), I want to be sure I handle the situation properly. So i would gladly welcome a new case play on this once NFHS releases its new cases that invole the rule changes.

Consider this scenario:
AP throwin for A. After the release of the ball, B1 is the first to touch the ball in bounds when he kicks it.
Last year, the arrow would be changed because the throw-in was completed. With the rule change this year, the arrow will not be changed because the throw-in was completed.

BTW, I'll enforce it, but I don't have to like it. :)

I believe last year we debated it to the conclusion that the rule was ambiguous, there was nothing that declared which action was considered to have occured first. Some of us argued that it was the violation...as a parallel to a jumper catching the jump ball that was not so long ago clarified to effectively have the violation occur before the catch. This year, they've added a rule to designate what was really desired....to match the priority of violation over other events such as setting or flipping the arrow.

As I was typing that, I was starting to remember that discussion more clearly. You're right, the rule was ambiguous in that you didn't know what happened "first."