New "AP Legal Touch" Rule/Different Interpretation

[BayStateRef]

I was at a one-day camp sponsored by my IAABO Board when the new NFHS rules were discussed. Contrary to the consensus on this board, my IAABO interpreter says that IAABO is saying the AP arrow change will occur essentially immediately -- following the (presumably) legal throw-in, not some time later in the game.

To review:
Rule 4.42.5 was changed to say a throw-in ends when the pass is legally touched. In this thread, New AP arrow rule members here said this means that if there is a kick ball on an AP throw in, the resulting throw-in is for the kicking violation and that the next AP throw-in (next=later in the game; not this immediate throw-in) would go to the same team.

IAABO is saying the throw-in that results from the kick is not for the kicking violation, but is essentially a "do over" of the AP throw-in, since the throw-in did not end because it was not touched legally. After administering this (second) throw-in, assuming it is now touched legally, the arrow is to be changed.

The IAABO ruling:
Previously a throw-in ended when the ball was touched in bounds or out of bounds by another player. The potential existed that an illegally touched ball (kicked or fisted) would cause the throw-in to end. The rules committee determined that a throw-in should not end with the commission of a violation. Example: An alternating-possession throw-in of A1 is kicked by B1. The throw-in ends as a result of the Team B violation and Team A retains the ball for another throw-in. But the Team A throw-in would not result in an alternating-possession throw in. That throw-in ended when the ball was kicked. With the introduction of this rule change, the throw-in would not end on the violation as the ball was not "legally touched" in bounds. The subsequent Team A throw-in is an alternating possession throw-in.

The NFHS ruling:
4.42.5 SITUATION: Team A is awarded an alternating-possession throw-in. A1’s throw-in pass is illegally kicked by B2. RULING: As a result of B2’s kicking violation, Team A is awarded a throw-in at the designated spot nearest to where the violation occurred. Since the throw-in was not contacted “legally,” the throw-in had not ended. Therefore, the arrow remains with Team A for the next alternating-possession throw-in. (6-4-4)

I showed the NFHS ruling to my IAABO interpreter and he says the phrase "next alternating-possession throw-in" does not refer to some future throw in, but to this immediate throw-in.

So much for clarifying this -- for those of us who work for IAABO boards. The NFHS ruling is as clear as mud, since "next...throw-in" is ambiguous. I know that most of the posters here have said "next" is later in the game when there is another AP possession. But I can see where "next" is simply the next throw-in....or the one immediately following the kick ball.

My interpreter said he would discuss this with the rules folks at IAABO. Stay tuned.

[Scrapper1]

Where did the "IAABO ruling" come from? I just visited the IAABO home page and didn't see it. In any case, your interpreter is just flat-out wrong. And if that's IAABO's interpretation, then they're flat-out wrong, too. The case play from NFHS is crystal clear.

I believe the IAABO interpreters' conference is coming up in a couple months. They better iron it out there.

[Jurassic Referee]

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Where did the "IAABO ruling" come from? I just visited the IAABO home page and didn't see it. In any case, your interpreter is just flat-out wrong. And if that's IAABO's interpretation, then they're flat-out wrong, too. The case play from NFHS is crystal clear.

I believe the IAABO interpreters' conference is coming up in a couple months. They better iron it out there.

The IAABO ruling is in the current newsletter...which I received on Saturday. I believe it was written by Peter Webb -- who is on the NFHS Rules Committee. My interpreter said he would talk with Peter about it...and would be sure that it is discussed at the IAABO meeting in September.

I disagree that the NFHS case play is "crystal clear." It certainly was not clear to my interpreter and several other senior officials in my board.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

The IAABO ruling is in the current newsletter...

Do you mean the Sportorials? I haven't gotten mine yet, but I think I can read it online.

I disagree that the NFHS case play is "crystal clear." It certainly was not clear to my interpreter and several other senior officials in my board.

Hard for me to see how "the arrow remains with Team A for the next alternating-possession throw-in" could be confusing. The throw-in after the kick is the result of a kicking violation, not a held ball. It is quite simply NOT an AP throw-in. The arrow is not switched until the NEXT alternating possession throw-in. Therefore. . .

It ain't rocket science.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Do you mean the Sportorials? I haven't gotten mine yet, but I think I can read it online.

So......?

What does the Sportorial say?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

So......?

What does the Sportorial say?

Jeez, you're impatient.

It has the "IAABO ruling" that BayStateRef posted for us. It's exactly the same. But I think the IAABO ruling is more confusing than the FED rule itself. IAABO says:

The throw-in ends as a result of the Team B violation and Team A retains the ball for another throw-in. But the Team A throw-in would not result in an alternating-possession throw in. That throw-in ended when the ball was kicked. With the introduction of this rule change, the throw-in would not end on the violation as the ball was not "legally touched" in bounds. The subsequent Team A throw-in is an alternating possession throw-in.

The two highlighted sentences seem to contradict each other. The first sentence doesn't even make sense, to be honest. What does it mean to say that a throw-in does not result in a throw-in? I think what they mean is that the throw-in is NOT an AP throw-in. But then that directly contradicts the last sentence of the paragraph. Perhaps it's a typo. It's been known to happen.