New AP throw in rule

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I know I am joining the fun very late in this thread, but when the thread first started I was in second day four straight days of officiating at team camps and I finally had the strength to read it just now. Boy, did I miss out on a lot of Old School bashing.

First, I want to commend everybody who did a fine job of giving Old School the business on this play. The play was not a difficult one but everybody knows how OS likes to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Second, as someone who believes that Alternating Possession is an abomination upon the game (the only bigger abomination upon the game is Old School), the best way to get rid of these goofy scenarios is to bring back the jump ball for all held ball situations.

Let the fun begin.

MTD, Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Second, as someone who believes that Alternating Possession is an abomination upon the game (the only bigger abomination upon the game is Old School), the best way to get rid of these goofy scenarios is to bring back the jump ball for all held ball situations.

And after every basket too....

Yup, I'd love to see us actually jump 'em up in one of those JV wimmens games where they have forty-eleven held balls.

Mark, please do me a favor. Next time you're out with The Preacher, ask him to please give you a smack upside the head for me.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And after every basket too....

Yup, I'd love to see us actually jump 'em up in one of those JV wimmens games where they have forty-eleven held balls.

Mark, please do me a favor. Next time you're out with The Preacher, ask him to please give you a smack upside the head for me.

JR

You don't have to ask The Preacher to do it. My better half will gladly smack me upside the head forty-eleven times for you.

MTD, Sr.

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

as someone who believes that Alternating Possession is an abomination upon the game (the only bigger abomination upon the game is Old School), the best way to get rid of these goofy scenarios is to bring back the jump ball for all held ball situations.

Bring it on - except in girls levels below HS Varsity - where you can't tell if you are at a B game or a Swim meet for all the diving that is going on.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I know I am joining the fun very late in this thread, but when the thread first started I was in second day four straight days of officiating at team camps and I finally had the strength to read it just now. Boy, did I miss out on a lot of Old School bashing.

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.

First, I want to commend everybody who did a fine job of giving Old School the business on this play. The play was not a difficult one but everybody knows how OS likes to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Old School

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.
...
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.

Again, it's not to guarantee success, just to guarantee that the defense can only stop it through legal means.

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

No. Team A loses the arrow anytime they violation during the AP throwin...yet another rule you don't know.

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

Except that is not the rule...the AP hasn't done it's job until A gets the inbounds without a violation.

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. 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.

Which happens first, the violation (kick) or the ball obtaining inbounds status? They happen at the same time. The rule effectively says to consider the violation as happening first.

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. 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.

But the arrows is set when a player legally catches the ball after the jump.

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.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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