NFHS New Rules are posted

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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

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

You may now return to your regularly-scheduled thread.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

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?

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?

[DC_Ref12]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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?

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.

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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?

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 )

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.

[Adam]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[Adam]

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."