Once again, I respectfully and sincerely offer my services as a new moderator with the sole duty of deleting every single one of OS's posts.

What have you got against the Lawn Dart Officials Association of America??

Lah me.....it's McGriffs <i>redux</i>, Scrappy........:rolleyes:

7A). Team A throw in from the "T"


The thing that you have to remember here is that alternating possesion throw ins have nothing to do with every other throw in as you seem to be saying in your statement. The Alternating possession throwing only has to do with situations that result from a tie up or inability to determine who has possession of the ball or the begining of a period - in the old days the jump ball would have occured.

There are plenty of times that team A will get three consecutive inbounds oportunities if team B knocks the ball out of bounds or commits consecutive fouls or violations - We do not alternate possessions on fouls or violations just on tie ups or the officials inability to determine possession Oops inadvertant whistle also!


Also under your scenaro saying that team A had the ball three consecutive times for a throw in due to alternating possesion is NOT TRUE they have only had it once because at no time did they COMPLETE an AP throw in due to the actions of the defense.

Look at it this way:
team A has an AP throw in - A1 tosses the ball toward A2 - but A2 is held by B2 - foul called - Team A still retains the AP throw in due to the foul on B - BECAUSE THE THROW IN WAS NOT COMPLETED - what is the difference on a kicked ball?
The ball was not legally touched so throw in was not completed. I do not see all of the controversy here it seems pretty black and white/ red and green or what ever - Now if you choose to use your own set of rules and not follow what the book says to do - then you are going to have a problem,

I make my offer in the hope that we can avoid that fate.

THank you sir for clarifying that. If I had to see "since & sense" misapplied one more time before completely reading this thread I probably would've made the FONT bigger then what you did.

Here's one even better. SINCE some (o/s) on this forum never read a rule book, it makes no SENSE for them to post on this discussion board. :D I had to get that out.. Now I'll continue on to page 3 of this thread.

Is there more?? LOL :)

I wonder if we are taking this too far. Wouldn't the second throw-in be considered part of the original AP throw-in because of the kick, and when that throw-in is "legally" completed, the arrow would then change? The first AP throw-in never concluded because of the kicked ball. Not sure what to think of that.

No, WIRef. Here's what I wrote previously in this thread:

Here's what Jurassic wrote:

Here's what BktBallRef wrote:

Sensing a theme? :) The penalty for a kicked ball is a designated spot throw-in. The penalty for a kicked ball is NOT an AP throw-in. The AP throw-in never ended, so the arrow never switched.

I do not believe it can any more clear that that.

Even though I get it now, it's a good thing this is an uncommon situation. I've never had a kicked ball on an AP throw-in.

Curious as to how many times this has happened in games you've officiated??

Nobody making up their own rules. The problem here, at least for you word scholars, is the completion of the AP throw-in resulting in the arrow being pointed the other way.

To me, far too much attention is being placed on the completion when, imo, once the team is granted the arrow, then it should switch. Otherwise, enter the word scholar bullsh!t. Now you're saying the throw-in didn't complete so the arrow don't chance. That's BS. The AP has or should have nothing to do with the throw-in. It grants possession, that's it! That's all it's used for, now you attaching the throw-in as to the completion of the AP, is adding extra responsiblity to something that doesn't need it, and it changes the definition of the AP and the use of the AP.

Consider this, if we add a jump ball instead of the AP. That is fairer then our current use of the AP, because no extra is added to the JB. No throw-in that has to be completed for the JB to be completed, therefore, no violation can occur that would cause the JB not to happen. We have completely circumvented this rule and created our own definition of the AP, and it makes no sense, and it no longer does what it was initially designed to do, imho.

I guess I'm the only one out here who actually cares about the game. You are only concerned about the rules and that's too bad.

Heaven forbid we let the rules get in the way of a good game.

:D

1) I get it. NFHS rule 6-4-4 is BS.

2) Well, I'm sure that there are other people around that might agree with you. Fortunately, <b>none</b> of them are officials though. Officials do care about the rules. Silly officials!

Do what you usually do, Old School. Make up the rules in your rec league games as you go along, according to what <b>you</b> think they should be. Leave the officiating in real games to real officials though.

After reading the explanations above, it makes perfect sense (to those who can make perfect sense), that the rule does not cheat Team B when the AP arrow is kept for Team A. Team A never got to complete their opportunity for the AP because of the "kick" violation. Thus, they will still have the next opportunity when that arises. I get it now. Whew!!!!