![]() |
New AP throw in rule
The National Federation of High Schools has changed it's rule 4-42-5 to read that the throw in ends when the throw in pass is "legally" touched by another player. After reading the comments on this change, it appears that the intent of this rule is not allow a team to lose their AP throw in because of a violation by the defense.
Here is a scenario. Please comment on whether this is the way this rule is to be interpreted. Team A has a AP throw in. The thrower releases the pass and a member to team B kicks the pass. Team B is called for the kicking violation and team A is given a spot throw in for the violation. Team A now successfully completes the throw in pass. During play a held ball occurs. Team A gets the throw in due to the AP arrow since their original AP throw in never ended. Is this the correct interpretation? |
Quote:
|
That doesn't make since!
|
Quote:
|
Here is a scenario. Please comment on whether this is the way this rule is to be interpreted. Team A has a AP throw in. The thrower releases the pass and a member to team B kicks the pass. Team B is called for the kicking violation and team A is given a spot throw in for the violation.
So a kicking violation by Team B on an AP throw-in results in a spot throw-in... doesn't that put Team A at a disadvantage?? Team A now successfully completes the throw in pass. During play a held ball occurs. Team A gets the throw in due to the AP arrow since their original AP throw in never ended. Shouldn't the arrow switch to Team B after the A's successful throw-in is complete? :confused: :confused: Help me out. |
Quote:
|
I agree with M&M's interpretation of the rule, but I wonder about the rule's logic...
Assume that before the throw in Team B had the ball and B1 was involved in a jump ball situation. Team A is awarded the throw in on the AP, so Team B has now lost possession. In the OP, Team B then kicks the ball on the throw in, so the rule gives Team A the throw in because of the kick (not because of the jump ball) and leaves the AP arrow with Team A. If Team B has another jump ball on the their next possession, they lose the ball again on the AP. What is the logic in giving Team A the AP possession twice in a row in this type of situation? |
Ohhh okay, now I get it!
After the kicking violation on B, it is no longer an AP throw-in for A, it's a throw-in for that violation. Thus the next time we go to the AP it remains with Team A since they never used it. That makes since... Even though B can lose the AP twice in a row, it their own fault for kicking the ball. That's the ticket :D |
So if Team B reaches for the ball on the throw in, touches it with his/her hand, and then it drops and is kicked by Team B, the AP arrow changes? I still don't see the reason to differentiate between a violation that occurs as the first thing to happen after the throw in and one that occurs after the ball is "legally touched". Any comments?
|
Quote:
Quote:
Does that make sense? |
M&M Guy: Thanks for the clarification, but I already thought it through (see post#8).
When OS agreed with me, I decided that I needed to think harder. j/k |
Quote:
That's why the discussion before this was interesting - on a kick, would the ball be legally touched (for a fraction of a second), then the violation? Or is the kick a violation immediately? We now know it's a violation immediately. |
Quote:
(That and actually trying to get work done at the same time...sheesh...) |
Thanks M&M. Our Assn had quite a discussion last night on this and we could not come to a consensus. Once I take this thread to the next meeting, I beleive we all be on the same page.
|
One last question, as a guy that is frequently the timer or scorekeeper for games, will the officials signal the table that the throw in never ended and the AP arrow should not change?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Everyone seems to think the arrow should grant the team a "complete" throw-in. I think it should grant the team the opportunity for a throw-in, ending when the thrower gets the ball. Switch the arrow when the thrower gets it, and all this other stuff goes away. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Well, I guess am not in the camp of giving a "complete" throw in. I would think that the team receiving the throw in got the "advantage" or the "reward" of the AP arrow when the ball was not given to team B for a throw in to begin with.
|
Quote:
Now they can get penalized twice especially if they commit a violation on the throw in that otherwise would not have affect possession of the ball... as in the OP a kick on the throw in, Team A had the throw in and still gets the throw in after the kick... If Team A had the ball in play and Team B kicks it Team B is not "penalized", Team A just gets the ball back for a throw in. However, under the new rule, Team B suffers a "penalty" for kicking the ball on a throw in. |
Jump ball situation, AP points to team A. Team A is given ball for throw-in. B kicked ball. A is given ball for throw-in. A successfully passes ball in and while in possession, we have another jump ball. AP is still with A. Give team A the ball again. That is wrong!! That is just plain wrong!!! Team A has gotten the jump ball twice in a row on a jump ball. That defeats the purpose of the Alternating Possession. Why does the fact that a violation occurred b4 the throw-in is completed matter? Why? The rule makes no since. Guys, you got to be deeper thinkers then this. Our profession is certainly going to go down the tubes with weak thinkers like you that's too damn afraid to stand your own ground. It's got nothing to do with what I think, but does the rule pass the smell test? This one doesn't the way it has just been defined here. Say what you want to say about me as a person but at least I stand my ground. You can't just sell me anything. We might as well just go center circle, jump it up if we're going to play this bullsh!t. How in the hell am I going to explain to the coach that the same team over and over and over will keep getting the AP because of a violation on the original throw-in. Teams are going to think we are cheating and that's going to be an even bigger problem to deal with. That's dumb, I'm sorry, until someone explains the rational to me, that's just dumb.
|
Quote:
The penalty for kicking the ball <b>during</b> a throw-in is simply another repeated throw-in. If you take away the arrow from the throwing team also, then you're penalizing the throwing team for the defensive team's violation as well as rewarding the defensive team for committing that violation by giving them the AP. That doesn't really seem to be very fair, or logical imo. Btw, the penalty for the kick during play is now <b>EXACTLY</b> the same as the penalty for a kick during a throw-in. The other team gets a throw-in and the arrow <b>doesn't</b> change. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
That logic makes no sense at all. |
Why isn't the throwin after the kicked ball another AP throwin?
|
I find it hard to believe that some of us would actually think that a violating team is being penalized for an intentional act such as kicking a ball. Like the most have stated already. The AP throw-in was not "legally" completed thus the arrow should not be switched. my 2 cents
|
Quote:
1) The rules make no sense to you because you simply don't understand them. You're got two completely different plays that are handled two different ways, by rule. They've got absolutely nothing to do with each other. You simply call <b>each</b> play by it's own applicable rule. If you don't know the rules, you come up with some convoluted nonsense trying to explain something that you can't comprehend in the first place. The throwing team did <b>NOT</b> get the ball twice in a row on a jump ball. They got the ball once because of a kicking violation by the other team, and they got the ball the other time because they had the AP. You simply don't understand the play and the applicable rules. 2) WTF is "passing the smell test"? You call the damn game by the rules, not by some stoopid freaking "smell test". Un-freaking-believable.....:rolleyes: 3) Nobody is saying anything about you as a <b>person</b>. We're saying that you obviously aren't an <b>official</b>, JMO. You might be the nicest person in the whole world, but that doesn't change the fact that you know piss-all about basketball officiating. And you keep proving that over and over. 4)You tell the freaking coach that it's the freaking rule. That's exactly the same as you do any other time that you might get questioned. Who cares if the coach might happen to be as dumb as you are when it comes to the rules and doesn't understand them either? |
Quote:
Answer: a throw-in for the other team. The AP is a non-factor. Changing the arrow is not part of the kicked-ball penalty. |
Quote:
Quote:
BTW folks, the word is SENSE, NOT SINCE! "That doesn't make any SENSE!" Not "That doesn't make any SINCE!" Good grief! |
Team A has an AP throw-in. The throw-in starts when the ball is at the disposal of A1.
The OP has the throw-in immediately kicked by B1. This tells us that the first throw-in did not end, since the ball was not legally touched by another player (rule change) 4-42-5. More specifically, 6-4-4 says that "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." Neither of these happened, so the AP throw-in hasn't ended. When the next throw-in is completed, the arrow should switch. We also have to look at 6-4-5 which states, "The opportunity to make an alternating-possession throw-in is lost if the throw-in team violates. If either team fouls during an alternating-possession throw-in, it does not cause the throw-in team to lose the possession arrow." This tells us to switch the arrow is the throw-in team violates, not to switch for a foul by either team, but doesn't instruct in the case of a defensive team violation. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
;) |
just a thought
AP throw in by team A KICKED BY B1. ap throw in never ended. Arrow stays for A. Another AP throwin by A legally touched. Now arrow is switched to B.
basicly, kick is like the orginal throwin never happened. I THINK THIS IS LIKE A KICK BALL NOT GIVING UP THE RIGHT TO RUN THE BASELINE. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not saying I am completely right, but there is nothing in the rules that say that the a defensive violation on the throw-in cause the arrow to not switch. It mentions fouls and offensive violations, but not defensive violations. Why can't the next throw-in also be an AP throw-in? 6-4-5: "The opportunity to make an alternating-possession throw-in is lost if the throw-in team violates. If either team fouls during an alternating-possession throw-in, it does not cause the throw-in team to lose the possession arrow." Since none of these happened and the original throw-in has not ended, the opportunity to make an alternating-possession throw-in still exists. |
Quote:
I'll cite the rules for you. If you won't accept them, there's not much I can do. 6-4-4 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. Since the throw-in did not end and Team A did not violate, the arrow is not changed. 9-4 A player shall not travel with the ball, as in 4-44, intentionally kick it, as in 4-29, strike it with the fist or cause it to enter and pass through the basket from below. NOTE: Kicking the ball is a violation only when it is an intentional act; accidentally striking the ball with the foot or leg is not a violation. PENALTY:The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. When a player intentionally kicks the ball, it's a violation. The ball is then awarded to the offended team. It makes no difference what happened prior to the kick. We are now dealing only with the violation by B. That violation gives the ball to Team A for a throw-in. The arrow is NOT changed. It's no different that if Team B had fouled before the throw-in ended. For example: A1 has the ball for a throw-in. B1 fouls A2 before the throw-in ends. It's the 5th team foul on team B. That foul gives the ball to Team A for a throw-in. The arrow is NOT changed. |
Quote:
BktBallRef is gonna give it a shot now, but it doesn't look good.:) . |
It looks to me as though there could be a logical way to reason our way to either outcome. Personally, I'd lean toward the kick not causing the AP throw-in to end, but rather for that resulting throw-in to still be an AP throw-in. But it appears that the Fed Rules Committee doesn't think that way, so we'll have to do it their way. I don't like it, but there it is. I hope they give us a case play on it, though.
|
Quote:
Anyway, I'm going to try this one more time. 1.) Beep! Jump ball!!!! 2.) Jump ball AP arrows points to team A 3.) Team A given ball for throw-in. 4.) Violation, kick ball on defense 5.) Team A inbound ball again, successfully. 6.) Beep! Jump ball again! 7.) AP still points to Team A because AP throw-in never occurred because of violation on defense. Team B coach goes ballistic and gets ejected. Reasoning is he knows that nobody in charge of the rules in their right mind would think of something like that, and accuses referee's of cheating. 8.) Team A given ball for inbound from AP 9.) Team B violation again, kick ball 10.) Team A inbound again from kick ball violation, successfully 11.) Beep! Jump ball 12.) AP still points to Team A. In case you can't figure my example out JR because you have too much hate in your heart, that's 3 jump balls, 3 consequtive jump balls, all going to the same team. That defeats the purpose of the AP arrow. If you reason this is okay and consistent with thE rules of fair play. You need to get the hell out of basketball because you are ruining the sport with your legal BS! Again, if this is the way I am understanding this rule then it is wrong, this is cheating in my book. If we can't get the AP rules right then screw it and let's toss the ball center circle on all the jump balls. That is fair play, IMHO! |
Why is this so hard for some to grasp? If the defense, say B team, violates during a throw in, it is a violation that carries it's own remedy. Forget the AP throw in. It becomes irrelevant when a defending team violates during a throw in. If they keep violating (Kicking) on the throw in, the other team retains right to the throw in.
Why be concerned about an AP arrow when the violation is the current issue to address? Am I being too simplistic here? OS, whereinthehell is there cheating? Team B keeps violating (See your 4 & 9 above), team A keeps tossing. |
Quote:
2) Yup, that's 3 consecutive jumps balls given to Team A because that's what the damn </b>rules</b> tell us to do. And again, who cares if the coach is as freaking stoopid as you are and doesn't understand the rules either after it is explained to him. If he's that dumb, he can go sit in the stands beside you. Because it's a rule, I sureashell don't expect <b>YOU</b> to understand it, JMO. It's also a waste of damn time explaining it to you either because you obviously can't understand the explanation. Do what the hell you want to do in your crappy rec league leagues. Nobody there understands the rules anyway, and if they do you can always pull your usual bullsh!t. Just a little warning though; if by some weird chance you ever do get put on a <b>real</b> basketball game--maybe a high school Frosh or JV game or something like that(because every other official in your area except you came down sick on the same day)-- don't try your usual bullsh!t. Even brand-new Frosh coaches will know more about the rules than you do. Freaking amazing. Get out of basketball because you know the damn rules and how to apply them.:rolleyes: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
(b) If, for some reason, B's coach gets ejected, there MUST be a technical foul involved. Possession will be awarded to B for that, so no AP situation there. (c) If you don't think you can handle these 'complicated' and 'heinously unfair' rules, then p*ss off and go officiate lawn darts. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
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, |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
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?? |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
:D |
Quote:
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!!!!
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
By the same token, keep changing the rules, and the game won't be the same anymore. The "word scholar" bs as you call it, is our efforts to care about the game by carefully keeping the rules consistent. When YOU decide to do things YOUR way, it's YOU that aren't caring about the game. The game IS the rules. |
Okay, let me try it this way. In the beginning of the game before the AP arrow is set we jump the ball. Beep, before the toss we got a violation. Team A receives possesion of the ball. Once the ball becomes live, the arrow is pointed to Team B. Now, let's say for argument sake that before the ball became live, we had a kick ball violation on Team B. AP arrow not set. Who gets the arrow now? Still, team B because A gets the ball from the violation of the jump.
Officials have argued that what you call (foul) in the beginning of the game, you call it the same in the end. Well, that is not the case here. To start the game, we set the arrow but we don't do that in the middle or the end of the game. We wait until something after the fact happens. That is not the original intent of the AP arrow, imho. |
Quote:
At least you're the one calling yourself a "nobody" this time. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Why do you keep trying? |
OS
There is no word smithing going on here - and it is not BS it is the RULE - To address your point - That the arrow grant possession only - fine - But should I lose that possession because of something the other team did? That puts me at the disadvantage. Example: Team A is awarded an AP throw in late in a very close game, with the ball at the disposal of the thrower - NCAA = team control -(so under your scenario the arrow changes) Now B1 reaches in and slaps the ball away from A1, -loss of team control - technical foul. Shoot two free throws - Under NCAA you would go to point of interuption which was - AP throw in - correct- so now the arrow has changed to B so it is Team B ball - if you give the Ball to Team A it would be because the Throw in was not completed. |
Quote:
|
The AP throw-in that never ends ... Sounds like a Twilight Zone episode.
|
Quote:
"Beep, before the toss we got a violation." Please explain exactly what violation can occur before the ball becomes live to start the game. "Now, let's say for argument sake that before the ball became live, we had a kick ball violation on Team B." Please explain exactly how can we have a kicked ball before the ball becomes live. Once again, we're all dumber from having read an OS post. http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...s/banghead.gif |
I was so stunned by the stupidity of OS' post above that I replied without readibng the other responses. I'm so glad that others recognized the stupidity as quickly as I did>
|
Quote:
When the referee is ready and until the ball is tossed, nonjumpers shall not: a. Move onto the center restraining circle b. Change positions around the center restraining circle nfhs 6.2 The ball becomes live when a. On a jump ball, the tossed ball leaves the referee's hand(s) NCAA 6.4.8 and 6.1.4a similar Just sayin ;) |
OS disapeared?
Was he blinded by the rules!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm intrigued by the concept that Dan puts up, that a violation can be committed before the ball is live. Is this the only case? |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
BTW, if tis happens to me, I'm simply stopping and telling everyone to get set. It's a weak call IMHO. But you're correct, it is a rule. I could see OS calling it if he knew anything about the rules. |
Quote:
If it bothers you that much blow the whistle to check if the clock operator is ready to go and wait for the wanderer to settle down. But what do I know? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Upon the throw-in following this violation. B3 kicks the throw-in pass from A1 to A3. That's how it happens moron. But I'm just saying for arguments sake. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Wish I could say nice try, but it wasn't. F on content, D for effort. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
2) What violation, moron? The one that <b>you</b> called that never happened? The phantom violation? It just never freaking ends. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Inexperienced officials will still know that this <b>isn't</b> a violation. Rec League officials and trolls who have never owned a rule book in their lives will think(wrongfully) that it is a violation. Interesting concept, Old School. Call violations on legal plays. I wonder if that'll catch on. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Taking off after the toss is AFTER THE BALL IS LIVE, and therefore does not fit your previous scenario, nor is it a violation. Quote:
You're truly clueless. |
Quote:
Oh, and once again, I volunteer to delouse the forum by removing all OS's posts. |
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
...sigh...Ok, here goes:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">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. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> Quote:
Damn, JR, now I have to clean my screen and get another soda! :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:27am. |