NFHS New Rules are posted

[181174]

Thanks, that does make sense. Though if that was the discussion before some people were putting way too much thought into the interpetation of the rule. I would think if you putting the ball in play bc of a held ball and team A has the ball for the throw-in bc of the arrow I wouldn't even think of wondering about the AP bc of a kick ball. I believe officiating is difficult enough without making it even more complicated. Just my opinion.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by 181174

Thanks, that does make sense. Though if that was the discussion before some people were putting way too much thought into the interpetation of the rule. I would think if you putting the ball in play bc of a held ball and team A has the ball for the throw-in bc of the arrow I wouldn't even think of wondering about the AP bc of a kick ball. I believe officiating is difficult enough without making it even more complicated. Just my opinion.

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?

[181174]

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.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by 181174

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.

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

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.

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!!!

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by socalreff

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!!!

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.

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

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.

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?

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

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?

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by socalreff

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.

Socal, legally touched means exactly that.

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

btw, your response to Dexter makes no sense.

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by socalreff

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.

got it now. I misunderstood

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.

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

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.

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.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by socalreff

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.

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.

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

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.

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.