New AP throw in rule

[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!

[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.

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Quote:

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.

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

Under NFHS there is NO TEAM CONTROL ON A THROW IN - so there is no possession.

Careful now OHBBREF...lest you wander down the OS path.

Possession and Team Control are not one and the same. In fact, a team has possession before they have team control. Take a look at the correctable error rules/cases to see what I mean. A team's possession generally begins the moment an infraction or goal (by the opposite team) occurs or when a team gains control of a ball from a steal/rebound/etc.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Old School

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

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.

ROFLMAO

MTD, Sr.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Explain how illegally touching the ball is good defense. No one is arguing that team A should be able to complete a throwin to their team....just that team B can't cause team A to lose the arrow by by a violation....that is the ENTIRE purpose of the rule change.

Again, the rule doesn't guarantee you get it inbounds to your team...just that the defense can only cause the AP to end by legally touching the ball (even catching it)....not by kicking it.

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...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Old School

I don't understand...

Tell me something I don't know!

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Careful now OHBBREF...lest you wander down the OS path.

Why do you want to say something like that? I have never said anything bad about You -

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

. A team's possession generally begins the moment an infraction or goal (by the opposite team) occurs or when a team gains control of a ball from a steal/rebound/etc.

I see what you are saying - Mind you this is my Opinion - but since the tie up is because there is no clear possession of the ball I do not have team posession. but good point.

[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 bob jenkins

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

Shouldn't this be a FAQ?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

If my moderator application gets accepted, you won't have to do that anymore.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

So what! That's my point that I have failed to get across. They don't get the ball!!!! Gaining the possession arrow is nothing, you want the ball. Nothing is gained from the defense, nothing is lost from the offense. We got zero here in terms of possession and the ball. I don't understand why the rulemakers feel they need to do something here or change this rule.

Now, if the ball was switched or given to the defense for the throw-in, we got a problem, but the rules of the violation takes care of that. Either way, the offense should lose the arrow. For example:

1. Successful throw-in, arrow changes
2. Defense steals throw-in, arrow changes
3. Violation offense, arrow changes
4. Violation or foul defense, no arrow change until 1, 2, or 3 above.

Eliminating that the arrow doesn't change after #4 above is a problem. That means offense gets it again, and again. That's an unfair, unneeded imo advanatage. The violation the defense committed is now two-fold. You ensured they kept the ball (violation - which carries it's own penality) and the AP. That's like double jeopardy, convicting me for the same crime twice.

Allowing the arrow to switch simply mean the next "ALTERNATING" possession goes to the next team, not the same team. Wow, I definitely not understanding the merits behind this change.

[BktBallRef]

May I suggest that each of us update our ignore list? This is pointless.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

May I suggest that each of us update our ignore list? This is pointless.

Why do you need a list to just ignore someone? Do you need an ignore list or a piece of software to ignore a coach?

Peace