New AP throw in rule

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Old School

I don't understand...

Tell me something I don't know!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Old School

Again, even if the defense commits a violation, what disadvangate has occurred to the offense in relation to the AP? They still got the ball for the throw-in.

So a violation was committed. So what? What advantage has the defense gained? I don't understand...

Lah me.....

The defensive team violates. If the rule was written the way that you want it to be instead of the way that it is ,the offensive team would lose the arrow because of that defensive violation. That's the freaking advantage that the defense would gain by committing a violation. We've been trying to tell you that for freaking days.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Old School

1) I don't think that the Fed. of coaches would agree with this ruling either. Team A receiving the AP multiple times in a row because of a violation on the inbound. IOW's, you punishing good defense.

2) In order for there to be a violation, the AP awarded me the ball for the throw-in. Without the arrow in my favor from the AP. The throw-in would never have happen.

3) What happens if there’s a violation of the offensive team? Team B gets the ball and the AP stays with Team A because the throw-in was not successful. That makes since to me.

4) Not null and void but ended.

Sigh, where to start....

1) Who gives a flying fuk what any coach thinks? How many times do we have to tell you that? And what moron other than you would think that kicking the damn ball is "good defense"?

2) I defy anyone to translate that into English. There will be a reward offered.

3) Um, no. If there's a violation on the offensive team during an AP throw-in before that throw-in ends, the offensive team will lose that AP arrow. Sez so right in the rules. Another guess gone bad. Does that make any since to you?

4) You're null and void.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Old School

2) In order for there to be a violation, the AP awarded me the ball for the throw-in. Without the arrow in my favor from the AP. The throw-in would never have happen.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

2) I defy anyone to translate that into English. There will be a reward offered.

Damn, JR, now I have to clean my screen and get another soda!

[SmokeEater]

Originally Posted by OldSchool

2) In order for there to be a violation, the AP awarded me the ball for the throw-in. Without the arrow in my favor from the AP. The throw-in would never have happen.

Translation: Without the chicken there would be no egg! Or is it No egg begets no chicken? I'm so confused....

If we used OS way of thinking all AP's would be handled by a Check ball at the top of the key!

[M&M Guy]

...sigh...Ok, here goes:

Originally Posted by Old School

I'm not communicating my position very well.

Actually, you are. That's why you get so many negative responses.

Originally Posted by Old School

I don't think that the Fed. of coaches would agree with this ruling either.

There is no Fed. of coaches. There is the National Federation of State High School Associations, otherwise referred to here as NFHS, or the Fed. If that is what you are actually referring to, then you would be entirely wrong because the Fed./NFHS actually included this ruling in this year's changes.

Originally Posted by Old School

Team A receiving the AP multiple times in a row because of a violation on the inbound. IOW's, you punishing good defense.

In your words: Hold the phone! If the defense violates on the throw-in, it is not good defense. The reason for the ruling is you are punishing bad defense. How do you reason the defense kicking the ball is good defense?

Originally Posted by Old School

First, the AP grants you possession. It does not or should not guarantee you a successful throw-in. If there’s a violation of the throw-in, you don’t lose the ball anyway. You are now on to something else, like another spot throw-in. AP is now done. What happens if there’s a violation of the offensive team? Team B gets the ball and the AP stays with Team A because the throw-in was not successful..

This is one of the very statements that gets you in trouble, because it is flat-out wrong. The rules specifically say a violation by the throw-in team does in fact switch the arrow. See 6-4-4

Originally Posted by Old School

The AP should just guarantee you possession, not a successful throw-in.

Now, if that is an opinion, you are entitled to that opinion. If you are stating the rule and its intent, then you would be wrong. The definition of "Alternating Possession" in the rule book is, per 4-2-1: "Alternating possession is the method of putting the ball in play by a throw-in, as outlined in 6-4." In other words, it is a throw-in. If we go to rule 6-4-4, it says, "The direction of the possession arrow is reversed immediately after an alternating-possession throw-in ends. An alternating-possession throw-in ends when the throw-in ends or when the throw-in team violates."

If what you are advocating is a change in philosophy by the Fed., then you have a right to your opinion. We argue opinions on this site all the time, without ever getting personal. However, you communicate that the way we are to handle this situation is wrong, and that makes you wrong, per the rules.

One quality of all successful officials is the ability to communicate. We have to constantly communicate effectively, whether it's to report a foul or violation with our signals, talk to a coach or player during a game, or even communicate with our supervisors and AD's during a season. Please work on your communication skills.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Old School

I've seen worse in some of my games. Makes me feel right at home here. On the court and on the forum, yep, right at home, right in the heat of the battle.

Or not give up on the play. What we have here, in the great words of Cool Hand Luke, is a failure to communicate. I'm not communicating my position very well. I don't think that the Fed. of coaches would agree with this ruling either. Team A receiving the AP multiple times in a row because of a violation on the inbound. IOW's, you punishing good defense. If I try to steal the ball and cause a violation the AP is now null and void. Which means it doesn’t alternate.

Hold the phone! In order for there to be a violation, the AP awarded me the ball for the throw-in. Without the arrow in my favor from the AP. The throw-in would never have happen. So to me, you guys have circumvented this rule into something it was not originally intended to do. By saying the AP is not complete until a successful throw in, is wrong and at the heart of the argument. Maybe if you guys could quit hating on the messenger and start focusing on the issue, we might have come up with a resolution by now, instead of blindly following the rules into oblivion. Isn’t that what Jim Jones recommended, just drink the kool-aid. No, this rule has some issues and so does that kool-aid.

First, the AP grants you possession. It does not or should not guarantee you a successful throw-in. If there’s a violation of the throw-in, you don’t lose the ball anyway. You are now on to something else, like another spot throw-in. AP is now done.

What happens if there’s a violation of the offensive team? Team B gets the ball and the AP stays with Team A because the throw-in was not successful. The AP should just guarantee you possession, not a successful throw-in. Once I hand the player the ball, the AP has done it’s job. Now, in the event that we have another held ball on the throw-in. The AP will stay with the team currently inbounding, Team A. That makes since to me. Once we have a violation, the AP has ended. Not null and void but ended. Once the ball is inbounded, possession should now switch as in hence, alternating possession.

Just like in a jump ball. If you recover the ball from the jump you have possession. That possession is equivalent to me handing you the ball for the throw-in. What you do with it, is on you and we should not try to legislate the rules so that we help you get it inbounded successfully and reward you again with another AP from normal basketball play that carry's it's own punishment. That's too much big brother.

OS:

I cannot believe how you can believe what you write. Not a single thing you have written in this thread makes sense or conforms to the rules of the game. I have tried and tried to be nice and lead you down the correct path and give you good advice to make you a better basketball official but you refuse to listen. Please, please stop posting until you learn the rules of the game. If you do not want to follow my advice you will only continue to make a fool of yourself.

MTD, Sr.

[Nevadaref]

For MTD:


For OS:

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

For MTD:

That's cute.

MTD, Sr.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Old School

What we have here, in the great words of Cool Hand Luke, is a failure to communicate. I'm not communicating my position very well.

Wrong again.

Cool Hand Luke did NOT say "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

The words were spoken by a prison guard captain in the movie.

As for you, you're communicating your postion as best you can. Unfortunately, you're wrong, as always.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Wrong again.

Cool Hand Luke did NOT say "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

The words were spoken by a prison guard captain in the movie.

As for you, you're communicating your postion as best you can. Unfortunately, you're wrong, as always.

A great, great movie and an even better book.

[OHBBREF]

You specifically wanted to stick to the NFHS Rules for now:

Originally Posted by Old School

First, the AP grants you possession. It does not or should not guarantee you a successful throw-in. If there’s a violation of the throw-in, you don’t lose the ball anyway. You are now on to something else, like another spot throw-in. AP is now done.

Under NFHS there is NO TEAM CONTROL ON A THROW IN - so there is no possiession -therefore- by your own logic it does guarantee the COMPLETION of the throw in so that you have team control of the ball (posession).

Originally Posted by Old School

Now, in the event that we have another held ball on the throw-in. The AP will stay with the team currently inbounding, Team A. That makes since to me.

They get to keep the ball for the same reason that they get to keep the AP Arrow if the Defence commits a violation The AP throw in has not been completed!

Originally Posted by Old School

Just like in a jump ball. If you recover the ball from the jump you have possession. That possession is equivalent to me handing you the ball for the throw-in.

Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong - That possession establishes Team Control
NO TEAM CONTROL ON A THROW IN

Originally Posted by Old School

What you do with it, is on you and we should not try to legislate the rules so that we help you get it inbounded successfully and reward you again with another AP from normal basketball play that carry's it's own punishment.

So If on a non AP throw in A1 throws the pass toward A3 but B3 kicks the ball and it hits A3 then goes out of bounds it should be Team B ball ?

You are not being rewarded with a new AP if the defence violates they are being punished under the rules of the violation - (By the way violations and fouls IMO_ are not normal basketball plays that is why they carry penalties.)

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

They get to keep the ball for the same reason that they get to keep the AP Arrow if the Defence commits a violation The AP throw in has not been completed!

Nice answer to OS, but I think I'm going to have to report you to Padgett for speaking metric!

[Old School]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

You specifically wanted to stick to the NFHS Rules for now:
Under NFHS there is NO TEAM CONTROL ON A THROW IN - so there is no possession -therefore- by your own logic it does guarantee the COMPLETION of the throw in so that you have team control of the ball (possession).

Understood! Thanks for clarification, but we still have a problem.

They get to keep the ball for the same reason that they get to keep the AP Arrow if the Defense commits a violation. The AP throw in has not been completed!

Wrong! The AP is completed, imho! They get to keep the ball because of the violation. The held ball situation is no more at this point in time. If the AP doesn’t guarantee successful throw-in, then why shouldn’t it switch right now? You say that a team shouldn't lose possession because of a violation. Well, they didn't. They still got the ball for the in-bound. What is so great or so bad, that a violation of the throw-in puts the team in possession of the AP arrow at a disadvantage where you need to tweak the rules in the favor of the offense? How are they so disadvangated? I don't understand this piece.

Remember why the AP was brought in, in the first place. Once I jump the ball, the held ball-jump ball (AP) situation is over, especially if there’s a violation. For instance, I toss the ball on the jump, it gets tipped, while trying to retrieve tip ball, B4 kicks the ball off A3 and then OOB. Violation Team B for the kick ball, team A gets the ball, Team b gets the arrow (AP). That is how it would be done if we jumped it.

Now, we got something that doesn’t even resemble the jump ball situation. You smart brain wizards, and I’m disappointed Mark on the fact that you can’t see this, but you guys have outsmarted yourself. The payload to this new rule is too big a price to pay for me. Team A, getting multiple AP possessions because of a violation by the defense, is not the original intent of the rule and it is not going to fly. I’m telling you, the space shuttle is going to blow up on takeoff. Some smart-azz engineer has got this new idea and it does not coincide with the original design. It sounds good on paper but it ain’t gonna fly.

It may be the rule, but it is not a good rule. We need to think a little bit harder about this one.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Old School

Wrong! The AP is completed, imho!

Your opinion is completely contrary to the rule and completely irrelevant to this discussion.