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.