New AP throw in rule

[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!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

For anybody else reading this except Goofus, this is what Goofus is recommending:
Defense violates during an AP throw-in. Defense now gets AP arrow because they violated.

Goofus can't figure out what's wrong wth this picture.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

For anybody else reading this except Goofus, this is what Goofus is recommending:
Defense violates during an AP throw-in. Defense now gets AP arrow because they violated.

Goofus can't figure out what's wrong wth this picture.

Defense now gets the arrow, but the offense still has the ball. It's not unfair.

Yes, I'm re-evaluating my opinion on this; but the stopped-clock theory leaves me some hope.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Defense now gets the arrow, but the offense still has the ball. It's not unfair.

The offense loses the arrow because of a defensive violation, and you think that's fair?

OK..........

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Do you need an ignore list or a piece of software to ignore a coach? Peace

Where can I get my hands on such software

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

Where can I get my hands on such software

When I find it you will be the first to know.

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

If I don't see a post, then I can more easily pass it by. There's zero chance if reading it.

Coaches? Yes. They're called earplugs.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Defense now gets the arrow, but the offense still has the ball. It's not unfair.

Yes, I'm re-evaluating my opinion on this; but the stopped-clock theory leaves me some hope.

Offense already had the ball. You aren't giving them anything.

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

So based on that - If under NFHS rules Player A1 has the ball and B1 reaches out in shoves him and the official calls the foul INTENTIONAL - Penalty two shot and team A gets the Ball ...

Originally Posted by Old School

That's an unfair, unneeded imo advanatage. .... That's like double jeopardy, convicting me for the same crime twice.

Team A has the ball and the coach on team A didn't like your lack of a call on a rebound and stands up and Calls you a good for nothing MF Arse who's heratige is in serious question as to being human and you "T" him up ... .

Originally Posted by Old School

That's an unfair, unneeded imo advanatage. .... That's like double jeopardy, convicting me for the same crime twice.

It seems to come down to a situation where you do not like the rule.

I do not like the Jumpstop rule
but I deal with it ...
I actually have become very good at calling it and getting it right - That would be how most healthy people deal with these type of things other wise it eats you up inside and you become old and jaded

[todd66]

It seems we have lost our way on this topic. The fact is this is the new rule and we must enforce it rather we like it or not. I do not believe that this rule leaves any room for interpretation such as contact being a foul or not.(advantage/disadvantage).

Hopefully, the Federation will be getting a case play out to us to show us exactly the way they want this situation to be handled.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

No, but for some games, noise-cancelling headphones would be nice. I'll have to call up Bose and see if they can manufacture them pre-tuned to howler monkey frequencies.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Defense now gets the arrow, but the offense still has the ball. It's not unfair.

Yes, I'm re-evaluating my opinion on this; but the stopped-clock theory leaves me some hope.

To allow the arrow to be switched might seem fair except that the defense can play a little differently...they chance getting something out of trying a marginally legal play. They have nothing to lose between a play that might end up in a violation if A gets the throwin but B gets the arrow. By letting the throwin team keep the arrow, the defense will lose something if they violate....the next arrow. Sure, it is not "this" possession, but one more future arrow is worth something.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

To allow the arrow to be switched might seem fair except that the defense can play a little differently...

How? Nobody coaches for this. How are you going to play defense differently? You trying to win the game, you not committing a violation to get the arrow. You need the ball, the arrow not gonna get you jack, but maybe fired at the end of the season.

they chance getting something out of trying a marginally legal play. They have nothing to lose (TRUE) between a play that might end up in a violation if A gets the throwin but B gets the arrow. By letting the throwin team keep the arrow, the defense will lose something if they violate....the next arrow. Sure, it is not "this" possession, but one more future arrow is worth something.

I'm not saying give team B the arrow on the violation. That's motor mouth JR with that ridiculous crap, trying to hyjack my position. After the ball is inbounded following the violation is when the arrow should switch. By not switching it, leaving it with Team A, the next held ball stays with A. That's the problem.

If i commit a violation on a AP throw-in, nobody gains anything. Nobody lost anything. I know I've said this before. If you tack on, lost of AP switch to my violation on the throw-in, which I know I've said this before, carries it's own penality, I just got penalized twice and for what?

Maybe the problem with me here is coaching. I don't think coaches coach for the AP. I could be wrong. Don't know what the hell that's going to get you, but if you want to coach for it, then maybe we need a new rule for something you are trying to do that I'm not aware of.

Maybe we get some coaches to chime in and share if this is something you actually coach for in the game. Maybe just share with me, where the team benefits when you do this because I can't see it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Old School

Maybe the problem with me here is coaching.

Naw, JMO, the problem with you is that you don't know or understand basic rules.