Okay, now we are starting to get there. Key word here is they get to do it again on the endline play. The issue is resolved right then and there. There is no deferring it for another held/jump ball that could occur 10 minutes later. The possession needs to be determined now just like the endbound priviledge was retained for the inbound now. At some point in time, the ball is going to be legally touched or a foul oocurs.

I'm a little concerned about the direction the rulemakers is trying to go with the rules here. I can see a can of worms about to be unleashed if this rule passes. Deferring rules, successive APTI, normal violations that turn into double jeopardy, oh my.....what's the world coming too!

Whatinthehell has this got to do with AP throw-ins. It's completely irrelevant.

And how can you enforce what you don't know?

Yes, so what is your point? The AP arrow is, by nature, for a throw-in in the future. After the initial jump ball to start the game, team A gets first possesion, and the arrow will be pointed to team B. It could point to team B <B>all game long</B> if we have the right situations happen. So what?

It is. The posession is a TI for the kicking violation. It is determined right at that instant. What is your point?

Cool, let's examine this. A1 has the ball for a APTI. While he's holding the ball, B1 holds A2 inbounds, trying to keep A2 from getting open. A is not yet in the bonus. What happens, and why?

Nothing, because none of this is happening, except in your mind.

The rule has already been passed, *****. That's what people have been trying to tell you.

What you want to do is completely different than what the rule already says you have to do.

You mentioned "null and void" before. You should change your posting name to that, JMO. It's certainly apt.

Okay, this works for me and I'm not sure why I didn't catch it before. So, while I may prefer my way, I'm much more ok with the way it is now. Why? Simple, consistency. The FED has determined that a team entitled to a throw-in gets to see that throw-in to the end.

Now, I may as well be arguing that ball handlers should be allowed 6 seconds rather than 5.

I see your point about the AP by nature is a future throw-in.

I'm a little concerned about the so what part. I think it helps when we have more officials that are concerned about the game then robots who has master following directions. I understand the rule is as it is, but it doesn't mean I have to like it. Also, I am not in the least opposed to change as long as that change takes us in a positive direction, like double foul POI.

This change does nothing more than open up another can of worms that we will have to keep track of that is off the beaten path, and not apart of the norm. I think the arrow has swung way too far the other way, giving the recieving team another AP in the future and the current inbound if the defense kicks the all. You can't have both. You can have the ball and neither one of us gets the arrow until the ball is legally touched, or you give me the future arrow but you can't have both, but that's just my opinion.

:confused: <i></i>

:confused: <i></i>

Maybe I can describe it more to your liking...think of it like this:

I walked into Best Buy monday night to buy a $100 microwave. I have a coupon that gives me 25% off any Best Buy purchase. So I take the coupon and the microwave to the cashier. The cashier says, "I'm sorry, you cannot use that coupon, it states on the back that this coupon can only be used on regular priced items and this microwave is on sale." So I put the coupon back in my pocket for future use.

But the cashier says "HOLD THE PHONE"! You just lost your right to that future coupon even though you were not able to use it at this time because you paid the sale price instead. Please hand it over."

Now, would that be right?

My apologies to Best Buy.

:D

I had to laugh at the logic of this one.

Unfortunately, the Outcomes are not the same. The ball becomes dead for two different reasons and at two different times. On a Kick, the ball becomes dead when the ball is kicked. It is a violation at that point. On the knocked ball that goes OOB, the ball is live until the ball touches OOB, not when it is knocked. Is the end result a violation in both cases? Yes, but outcomes and end results happen for many different reasons and different rules apply based on how they happen.

Consider this: A1 throws the ball in that touches no one and goes oob. A1 throws the ball in that is tipped by A2 but goes oob. The outcomes are the same, Team A caused the ball to go oob. Yet, the spot throw-in for B will be different even though the "outcome" was the same.

Consider this: A1 shoots a lay up that goes in. Later A2 launches a half court shot that goes in. Later A3 shoots a Free Throw that goes in. The "outcome" of the play is the same in that the ball goes through the basket each time, yet the scoring is different because of the rule.

http://www.norfolkwindmills.co.uk/im...age/splash.jpg

:)

ROTFLMAO!
How long you been holding that one? I'd channel my inner JR and/or Dan and swear at you, but it's early and I'm in a good mood.

Google is the greatest invention since sliced bread.

And, Fridays are even better.

But Fridays were invented before sliced bread.

This sounds a little like you are trying to justify your lack of rules knowledge by calling officials that know the rules "robots", while saying that you have the flexibility to call the game as you see fit. This insults the majority of good officials that strive to know all the rules, and still call the game as it should be called. All of the great officials that I know not only have a great understanding of the rules, but are the furthest thing from being a "robot" that I know. You must have a complete understanding of all the rules to then know about flexibility and when certain rules apply and when others don't. Being able to communicate effectively is also a trait of a great official. Maybe you have some of that understanding, however, you have not been able to communicate that over your time posting here.

You certainly have a right to your opinion, however, you have not been able to communicate your understanding of the rule. This is why you have been met with such great opposition. Two people might say M&M's are bad. One might say it is because they have an allergic reaction to chocolate. The other might say it's because banks hand them out with loans, and they hate banks. Both people have the same end conclusion, but the second person will be met with much more opposition than the first for the off-the-wall logic.

In the case of this rule change, many officials that understand the rules and the reason for the change actually feel this change <B>closes</B> that can o' worms. There has been many a discussion on whether kicking the ball ends a TI (big can of worms). We now it it doesn't - can closed.

Why can't you have both? Why do you want to take one away? Let's try this one: held ball, arrow points to A. You get ready to give the ball to A1 for the APTI, and B's coach calls you a Jurassic Referee. Of course you give the coach their deserved T, shoot FT's, and give the ball to A1 at the division line. Now, according to you, you are giving team A too many TI's, because they get this TI for the T, <B>and</B> they still get the arrow for later. Is this a correct assumption of your position?

Which just proves the point - the sequel is never as good as the original.

This is not the same as the endline privildege. The endline priviledge TI happens right away and the subsequent TI is not a kick ball TI, but an endline priviledged TI, which meant we went back to the condition after the scoring bucket following the kick ball violation.

On the APTI/kick ball, we now go to a new TI, which is the kick ball penality TI. The APTI is put off for the next held/jump ball event. The obvious question that everyone should see and be asking here is WHY? The EL priviledge event took the kick ball penality TI back to the EL priviledge event. It did not change the TI to a kick ball penality TI and reserved the EL priviledge TI to a future event.

I understand your point that the EL priviledge was retained and so must the APTI. My problem is why put this off to a future event? Why put this off to the next held/jump ball? Why not revert back since we are still at a TI. At this point, nothing is gained or lost to either team. This, my friend would have been the simpliest choice. Instead, the rulemakers choice the more complicated route.

Last, the AP replaced the jump ball. Everything that should happen or must happen can be backtested by just going back and reviewing what would have happen if we where still employing the old center circle JB. Let's review it.
1. Held ball - identify jumpers
2. jump toss - center or semi-circle
3. kick ball violation on B3 before ball is recover
4. team A gets possession
5. Next held/jump ball - identify jumpers
6. jump toss - center or semi-circle

As you can see, never is there a time in the old procedure where 2 consecutive held/jump balls results in one team being favored over the other to receive possession. Both teams (#2 and #6) have equal opportunity to get the next possession after the kick ball (#3) violation. This is where the mistake is. Not so in the new AP procedure.

It may feel like a "do-over", but that's not the reason for the result. After the kicked ball (violation by the defense, B), the new TI is for the kicked ball violation. If A's new TI is along the endline, A retains the endline priviledge per 7-5-7. If you read that rule, you'll see if the kicked ball results in the TI happening somewhere other than the endline, there is no endline priviledge; the new TI happens closest to where the violation occured. The rules committee though it put A at an unfair disadvantage to lose the endline priviledge because of a violation by B, if the new TI happens along the endline. This actually follows the same logic as the new rule; you don't lose the APTI if it was never completed.

The question we've been asking you, is why should A lose the APTI on a violation by B if the APTI was never completed?

That is wrong. Again, read 7-5-7. The new TI is for the kicked ball violation; only if the new TI happens along the endline does the team retain the endline priviledge. If the kick happens near mid-court, the new TI happens near mid-court as well, and the endline priviledge is done.

There you have it. I rest my case. The rules committe didn't want to put A at a disadvantage on the EL-TI, however, the same committee has put B at an even bigger disadvantage by allowing A to have multiple successive APTI, after they where given the ball back for the same TI. Team A has not been put at a disadvantage. A has not lost the right to throw in the ball and they have not lost the arrow. However, because B kicked the ball, they now lose the next held/jump ball. Think about that before you respond. If I'm B, I'm not kicking the ball, in fact, just let them get it in so we don't lose the next APTI.

I don't understand how come you don't see that. You must be Pro for this change. It has become more of a politic argument for you instead of a realistic argument. Haven't we seen this before (Demorcrats/Republicans). My question to you is what are you Republicans hoping to get from this change? This is a major move to me, adding an And-1 onto the kick ball violation. Giving a team multiple successive AP is bad rule interpretation to me. What's next is my fear....

My answer to this question is A has not lost the APTI. They still have the ball, which is all the APTI can give you is the ball for the TI, plus they still have the arrow because, remember, the touch was not legal. I am in the party that thinks the APTI should NOT guarantee you a successful TI.

Officials working high school ball and above have to follow the rules.

You, otoh, don't have those limitations. You can do anything you like. Lucky you.

Follow your heart.

I wish. All referee's have to follow the rules. If you don't, you will have some people pretty pissed off at you, no matter what the level. In fact, the lower the level, the worse it can get.

Aw, c'mon now. Are you really telling me that you can't call technical fouls at those lower levels just because the rules say that you can only call a personal foul?

I'm shocked!:eek:

Shocked, I tell ya!

Wrong.

A is not getting mutliple APTI's, because the original one never ended. They are <B>not</B> getting the ball back for the same TI, they're getting the ball for a <B>different</B> TI.


Ok, I thought about it.

B is not losing the next APTI. A has the next one because the A's hasn't finished. As soon as A's is finished, B <B>will</B> get the next one. Those are the rules. We should follow the rules, right?

Excellent idea. In fact, if B should <B>never</B> kick the ball. It's a violation of the rules of basketball. If B kicks the ball, they get penalized. What's your point?

Ok, this may be the closest you've had to a reasonable statement. You're finally starting to communicate. So, let's go with this. If getting the APTI should not guarantee you a successful TI, when do you propose the arrow should switch? As soon as you call the held ball? As soon as A1 steps OOB to throw it in? As soon as you hand it to A1? As soon as it's released?

And because the original one never ended, and the ball was not legally touched (remember). We're still under the original or same AP. Just like the ELTI was retained. I really don't understand what's so difficult to understand about that.


I will go with the current rule, as soon as it is legally touched with the caviet, if it is kicked, the AP stays the same until the next legal touch of the ball. This way, the balance of fair play is preserved.

Go back and reread my example if this situation should occur with the old jump ball toss procedure. I just don't understandwhat the rulemakers are up to here, but I know it's not for today. This is a move to get them in position to make another more outlandish move, imho. Don't know when, but I know it's coming.....

Again, the ELTI was <B>not</B> automatically retained. Please read rule 7-5-7, and tell me where it is.

You've been saying all along it is not fair. What changed your mind?

This is not rocket science
 

I have to laugh at the utter nonsense on this thread.

The change in the rule only makes it consistent with everything else! DUH

If A has the ball for AP and there is a foul before the throw-in has ended the ARROW stays with A. (Read this B cammot foul to gain advantage of the arrow) now it is the same with any other illegal action

OS's logic has been lost on me!

It is illegal for me to throw the ball OOB, whether I kick it, hit it with my fist, with my hand, or with my head. It is all illegal. Why does kicking the ball have the extra lose the arrow penality attached to it, when the others don't? The penality for the others is the same as the kick ball penality, and perhaps the biggest flaw to me, is that the offense retains the right to inbound the ball, anyway.

You have to view this procedure with the old jumpball toss procedure to understand that something wrong has happened here. We have circumvented the rule to something that was not the original intentions of the changing this ruke in the first place. Maybe it just takes an experienced eye to see it, but guaranteed, you make a chance like that to fuel lodge of the space shuttle, changing the way it was originally designed to work, it's going to explore on takeoff.

Gee, what a surprise. You're wrong again.

It is <b>not</b> illegal to throw the ball OOB by kicking or fisting it. The ball is dead as soon as it's kicked or hit with the fist. There is nothing illegal with throwing a dead ball OOB after that unless you want to call a "T" for delay of game.

You just simply don't understand the basics of officiating, do you? Unfortunately, that doesn't stop you from embarrassing yourself over and over though.

Silly monkey.....:rolleyes:

Look, OS. Say A1 releases the ball onto the court, and B1 slaps at the ball with his hand, and effectively stops the ball in the air, so that it drops to the ground and rolls slowly oob. That touch is legal, and now the APTI is finished, and the arrow switches, while the ball is rolling. In fact, the clock starts and should run during the rolling of the ball. because the throw-in was completed, the ball is live, and play is going forward.

B1 has caused the ball to go oob, and that is a violation yes, but only one violation. The penalty for that violation is that A gets the ball oob again. The arrow is not affected by the oob, because the APTI ended as soon as the ball was touched with the hand, and while the ball is rolling there isn't a violation to consider.

This is also true if B1 whacks the ball hard, and it flies oob, although it doesn't take very long. The touch was legal, the throw-in completed, the arrow switched, and THEN the violation is committed. See? If someone else jumps in and catches the ball that B1 batted, so that it stays in play, there is no violation. The violation isn't in touching the ball, but in the oob.

Now suppose that A1 releases the ball onto the court, and B1 kicks the ball. At the moment the foot touches, the violation is committed, and the ball is dead. Where the ball goes after that is irrelevant. Now the penalty for the kick is that A gets the ball for a throw-in. Even if someone jumps in and catches the ball that B1 kicked it doesn't matter. The violation was committed at the moment of contact, and the throw in wasn't completed.

The not-switching-the-arrow thing is not the penalty for the kick. The new throw in is. The no-switching-the-arrow thing is simply because the throw-in was never completed. There's still only one penalty for the kick and that's A getting the ball for a throw-in.

The penalty for B causing the ball to go oob in the first case, and for B kicking the ball in the second case is the same -- A gets the ball for a throw-in. No one "takes the arrow away" from B. They simply don't get it if they kick the ball, because the APTI wasn't completed. It's the same thing that would happen if B committed a foul during A's APTI. The penalty is for the foul, and the arrow isn't switched. A keeps the arrow, but not because B fouled. It's because the APTI wasn't completed. Why is that so hard to understand?

Okay Master Silly Monkey, I will give you that it is not illegal to throw the ball OOB. However, it is a violation, duhhhh...silly monkey, and a violation is an illegal act. Perhaps your understanding of the basics, goes beyond normal officiating, which I will openly admit, I don't care to that extent. However, I do care to understand what the penalty is, and the penalty for heaven's sake is the same no matter which way the freaking ball goes OOB, so whether you believe it is or isn't is mute, which is something I recommend you do with your mouth, on occasion. You know, just pass on the hyperbole.

We all get it....we all get that you have to be right and everybody else is wrong. We all get it...now, relax!

And there's where you're wrong....and that's exactly why this thread is so damn long. You simply don't understand the basic rules and concepts. And when people try to explain basic rules and concepts, you fail to comprehend the explanations.

If you deliberately kick or punch the ball, that is a violation. If the ball then goes OOB, it is not another violation. Going OOB after kicking the ball basically doesn't mean squat. There is <b>NO</b> penalty for the ball going OOB after a kick. There is a penalty(violation) for the ball going OOB after a legal touch in-bounds.

If you kick or punch an AP throw-in, the AP throw-in never ended legally and the arrow doesn't change. If you simply touch the ball in-bounds and it then goes OOB, the AP throw-in has ended legally and the arrow does change. It makes all the difference in the world......and you can't seem to understand that.

Apples and oranges iow....or you can also think of it as basketball officials and Old School. One doesn't belong with the other.

Eternal silly monkey......

I know this moron. This is not the issue.

We all understand this too. The reason this thread has gone this long is because you keep trying to make me believe that this rule change makes sense and it doesn't. By prolonging or delaying, or dismissing the APTI because of a kick violation. You double the penality for the kick violation. I could care less that the legal touching of the ball causes the APTI to end. That is normal and is what should happen, but kicking the ball should not put off the APTI indefinitely. The reason is because we are still at the same spot, we are still inbounding the ball. The smart thing to do would be to say the APTI has not ended, and the next (very next) legal touch of the ball ends it. Much the same way we allow the ELTI conditions to remain after the kick ball.

I am not the only one that disagrees with this logic. I am the only one that is taking a stand. I'm only taking a stand because I believe this change is wrong. If you observe what would happen in the event of jumping the ball center circle instead of this new AP procedure, you will then see that the balance of fair play has been compromise. If you can't see that then you are just as dumb as the person you are calling dumb.

Apples and oranges, no, just common sense. We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Gee, I'm sorry. It must have been some other idiot posting under your name that's spent 9 pages in this thread arguing against the obvious. Let us know if you ever find out who the idiot posting under your name is. That's just not right.

yeah, I'd ask for your money back.

However, when you consider the endline priviledge remained after the kickball, so the TI is still a ELTI, and it is also a kickball TI. How come the subsequent TI can not still be the APTI, like the ELTI, which then the next legal touch would cause the arrow to switch? Which is the way it should be. Delaying the AP Switch permanently until the NEXT held/jump ball is double jeopardy for the defense.

The penality for the foul can have different consequences other than another immeditate inbound. I understand that, and unfortunately it is the same even if Team A commits the foul. However, something we have not talked about to much here. Why is it, if team A kicks the ball, the arrow switches but if Team B kicks the ball, the arrow remains, the APTI for this occurrence is now null and void? How is it that kicking the ball can have different penalities depending on who kicked it? The rule makers have really outdone themselves here.

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