I don't think so. The issue with the NFHS old rule was that the ending of the throwin relative to the violation was ambiguous....which was first? The violation? or the touch? Which order to apply the rulings was in question. It's not really a change but a clarification....or the filling of a hole in the rule.

The new NCAA doesn't necessary change that. It only says that the throwin may stop before player control is established....at the touch. It doesn't say the the throwin ends before the violation....they've created the ambiguity but that may be cleared up through other means.

Okay, I see where they where attempting to plug a hole in the rules with this new rule. However, I just don't think the hole needed to be plugged, and the new rule has made it worse, imo.

First, plugging the hole. If there was a foul or viloation before, the AP would stay with the inbounding team (team A), provided Team B committed the foul or violation. After we had a successful inbound, either team with legal control, then it would switch. My problem is, what needed to be fixed here? I'm just not seeing it.

The new rule. Now, if there is a violation by the defense Team B, the AP was never completed and therefore the next jump ball stays with the current team. The problem here is this ruling has made it worse, imho. You are telling the defense to not try and play defense, just let them get the ball in so that the freaking arrow will change the other way. This is not what we want to happen to the game. This is where I argue the rule doesn't stand up to criterism. You fix one thing and break something else. This is why the space shuttle blew up on take-off, because a change was made that was not thought out completely. Once we ran it thru the system, we saw that this change is going to cause a problem over here. Sure, it fixes a terminology problem on the surface, but leaves a huge hole or problem on the backside. Teams retaining the AP 3, 4, 5 times or more in a row defeats the purpose of the AP. Can you see, you have just changed the definition of the Alternating Possession Arrow to Modified Possession Arrow. It is no longer alternating possession. That's big enough to cause the shuttle to explode on take-off. You go tink around with the fuel lodge of a million dollar aircraft and change the definition of what we thought this was designed to do. True, we're not dealing with a million dollar aircraft but I'm using this as an example to show how easy it is to create a catastrophy. I'm sure there was a lot of engineers at Nasa saying, the change is crystal clear, until the damn thing blew up on takeoff.

No, it's not rocket science but this change ain't gonna fly. You can't go tinkering with stuff and not think it all the way thru. This band-aid fix is gonna cause major problems down the line. Look at how we have argued this. The OP stated as well as many others that there associations,when discussing this change couldn't come to an agreement. I just think we can do better and as offcials we should demand better rule changes from our rule makers.

I know you're not seeing it, because you're looking in the wrong place. Your statement above, in red, is incorrect. The arrow switches immediately after the throw-in ends, per rule 6-4-4. A throw-in ends when the passed ball touches, or is touched by another player, as per rule 4-42-5, (up to 2006). It does not need to be controlled by either team for the arrow to switch. The hole, as you put it, is the question of what kind of touch constitutes the end of the throw-in. Can a kick, which is an illegal touch, be a touch that ends the throw-in, and in the case of an AP throw-in, switch the arrow? That is what has been argued in the past. This year, the rules committee decided to plug that hole and eliminate the argument by stating the throw-in ends when the ball is <B>legally</B> touched by a player.

So, are you saying kicking the ball is good defense? These types of statements diminish your credibility. No wise (basketball) man would ever state this. The reason team A gets another throw-in is because team B kicked the ball. If, during the next throw-in, team B kicks it again, team A will get another throw-in. If team B kicks it 5 times in a row, team A will get 5 throw-ins in a row. Are you saying that's just not fair to team B?

Actually, if you go back and read the entire thread, you'll see the ruling actually does agree with the NFHS rule change; the original association ruling appears to be a typo in the association publication.

Actually, I believe most of us demand better rules knowledge from our fellow officials. I hope you've learned something today. Confucius (a very wise man) once said, "The journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step." I hope your journey to the land of rules knowledge has begun today.

No, I am not but what does the kick ball have to do with the AP. Nothing, it is a violation that carries it's own penality.

Wrong! This is the heart of the problem. We are not talking about 5 throw-in's. We are talking about 5 consecutive AP's on a held or jump ball going to the same team because of a violation on the inbound which carries it's own penality. Now, you have doubled the penality for the kick ball, or even if the ball goes out on me (Team B) on a throw-in after the AP. It's ridiculous!

Consider this. If on a APTI, you pass the ball to A2 and B3 knocks it out of bounds trying to steal. Violation on B3 for knocking the ball OOB. Now that this occurred on the APTI, it is now a violation throw-in and the AP stays with Team A while they get to also inbound the ball again. The next held ball goes to Team A because Team B tried to get the ball back, normal defense. That is how I am interpreting this change. Please correct me if I am wrong. These type of changes diminishes the game of basketball to me. On the back end, this hole is so big you could drive the space shuttle thru it. I'm not buying.

Unbelievable!!:rolleyes:

Two humongous threads and he still doesn't get it.

You're completely freaking <b>WRONG</b> again!

B3 legally touched the throw-in in-bounds. That ends the throw-in. The arrow now changes to team B. <b>IT DOESN"T STAY WITH TEAM A!!!</b> After the arrow is changed, B3 knocks the ball OOB. Team A gets a throw-in for <b>THAT</b> violation.

If you don't understand the basics, why post?

Say what?

OS, I've never commented before on your posts, but you're not getting it.

AP points Team A.
Held ball occurs.
A1 to inbound.
B1 kicks the throw-in on purpose.
A1 gets throw in again, but using your words, the arrow now changes to point to B.
So B1 commits a violation and gets the arrow changed to HIS TEAMS favor.
And....you're OK with THAT?

There's hope for you yet.

Whoops, I spoke too soon. You are incorrect. In your example above, as soon as B3 touches the ball, the arrow is switched because the ball was touched by a player in-bounds. The OOB violation doesn't occur until the ball goes OOB <B>after</B> the touch by B3. So, in your example, the arrow switches, and A will get the ball for the throw-in. Also, this is how it has been handled in the past, this is how it will be handled in the future, and this has nothing to do with the rule wording change. The change has to do with the touch actually being a violation, not a touch, then a violation. Do you see the difference?

Look, I'm the last one who's going to come to OS' defense, but....
Let me ask this question. What has B gained by the kick in your post?

The didn't gain the arrow by the kick because they would have gotten it anyway. They don't gain the ball, because it's going back to A. However, under the rules as written, they lose the arrow they would have gotten on the next AP because they kicked it on this one.

I think I understand what you're saying, but you need to look at the AP this way: the AP gives you a "throw-in", not just an "attempt at a throw-in". I'm guessing you feel the arrow should switch, say, when the official hands the ball to the player for the throw-in? If B violates while A1 is holding the ball for the AP throw-in, B actually gains the arrow due to their violation, while A1 attempts another throw-in.

The AP is a "throw-in", and the rules specifically say when a throw-in ends.

1) No, there isn't.

2)Added the word in red for clarification......

An AP if you follow Old School's logic.....

The arrow changes on a legal touch, not an illegal touch. Dem's the rules, like it or not.

1) Hope springs eternal. (I think some wise man said that...)

2) You are right, thanks. I tried to make that clear in one of my earlier posts, but I didn't include that in this one. However, if you head over to the Int'l Date Line, you'll see I said that yesterday. Or tomorrow. :confused:

Coach, what has team B gained? Team A still has the ball for the throw-in and the way the rule is currently written (before this years change), if the ball was tied up again, the AP would stay with Team A because they never successfully inbounded the ball. That is the way the rule stands before this change.

After the change, the AP is permanently kept with Team A because of Team B's violation or kicked ball. Now, I don't even try to go for the steal on the inbound so that I don't accidentally set the arrow permanent for Team A. I have to let Team A inbound the ball and then I go for the steal because if I accidentally kicked the ball or there's a violation, I get double jeopardy. I get the penalty for the violation and the AP is now null and void. Stays with team A.

I don't know if you can permanently try to kick the ball like you are suggesting. If the pass is a bounce pass, then I can try and kick it to steal it, but if it's a pass, I can't kick it, which I'm trying to say, I don't think a team intentionally tries to do this or utilized this strategy to gain the arrow. Am I wrong here?

Yes, I do. :) To me, the AP should give A the ball for the throwin. Knowing I'm in a small minority here, I can live with the rule the way it is. And I can certainly understand and enforce it the way it's written.
I only jumped in here because I think the argument that B somehow would gain something by kicking the ball is flawed. Even if they get the next arrow, they haven't gained anything by kicking the ball. They would have had the next arrow anyway.

Is this a rhetorical question? ;)