In the case of the ELTI, if the endline privilege were taken away when B kicks the ball, B would benefit. SO they don't take it away. But that's not the penalty for kicking the ball, it's just withholding a "reward" that shouldn't be given when an illegal move is made.

In the case of the APTI, if the arrow were switched when B kicks the ball, B would benefit. So they don't switch it. But that's not the penalty for kicking the ball, it's just withholding a "reward" that shouldn't be given when an illegal move is made.

Even the sentences, when written out, are parallel. Hmmm. Maybe it's because the situations are so similar!!

Right, but the difference between the two are signifiicant. The next inbound, I'm talking the very next inbound is a ELTI and a KBTI. Two to make one. On the APTI, instead of the next inbound, the very next inbound being a APTI and a KBTI, like the earlier that you so eloquently defend as being correct, the APTI becomes null and void. Why?

We are not talking switch the arrow, so the arrow doesn't switch. No advangate gained or lost, offense or defense. The next inbound, the APTI is still waiting to be determined. Much the same way as the endline priviledge remained in tack. Who benefits or loses if the APTI is still undetermined? No one! No one is put at an advantage or disadvantage if the APTI is still undetermined at this point. The next legal touch will determine the AP arrow. Putting it off completely, as the rule now says is bad business, imho. Now I know why the NBA doesn't use this. It makes no sense.

We have made the AP so complicated that it is a problem waiting to happen in NFHS games. Source of confusing at the table, the coaches swearing up and down that there opponents had the last throw-in, home team staff switching it in the last few minutes of the game in their favor of course, the list goes on. What a joke! It would be nice if the rulemakers got in sync with the pay because if they are going to increase our workload x2, be nice to increase the pay x2.

By engaging this thread on the AP, I have learned so much more about the AP. From now on, each game I'm going to go over this in detail completely with the scorekeeper to make sure we are all on the same page.

When a coach insists the opponents had the last throw-in (and the AP arrow is pointing to the opponents), the Davism is to tell the coach that, maybe he's right, and to make up for it, you'll give him the next two out of three. That usually quiets them down. If it doesn't, make it the next three out of five.

Think about it for a minute. ;)

I know that generally, we aren't supposed to critique people's grammar and syntax, but I really can't respond to your post because I can't parse out what you're trying to say.

But I do know that it's not all that complicated. The number of times that a ball gets kicked on an AP throw-in is probably 10 times per season per state, and that's not any huge deal. It doesn't increase our workload x2. It DOES give our evaluators and assignors a chance to weed out the real refs who study and apply the rules from the ones who just hope they look good. I don't need extra pay for that.

Says who?

I've stopped trying with him.

Do you mean "says whom"? http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...ner_neener.gif

I most certainly do not.

A single negative. That's refreshing in this day and age. Thank you.
http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...mages/clap.gif