No, you're not wrong here. It would be a pointless strategy because they'd get the arrow anyway.

The freaking arrow!!! How many freaking times do you have to be told that? The defensive team commits a violation, and by doing so, they gain an AP.

Yes. Let's begin:

That is not the rule, has not been the rule, and will not be the rule. If the ball is tied up, there is no violation, all the previous and current rules about the throw-in ending have occured, so the arrow will switch to team B once the ball is leagally touched in-bounds, which would be the tie-up.

How is the arrow <B>permanently</B> set to one team or the other? How is the AP "null and void"? Do you have any rules references to back those statements up?

How would you handle this: A1 has the ball for an AP throw-in. Before the ball is passed inbounds, B2 fouls A2, and A is not yet in the bonus. Would you switch the arrow, and why?

JR, how do they gain the arrow by kicking the ball? they would have gotten the arrow, so they gained nothing.

I follow your line of reasoning, but try to think of the reason for the AP. It is replacing a jump ball for every held ball, which is a live ball play inbounds, not just an opportunity to throw it in.

I'm not sure I'm explaining that clearly, but I hope you follow what I'm trying to say.

That's an interesting rationale, and one I hadn't considered. I'm not sure it changes my philosophy on this, though.
To me, once the thrower gets the ball, the AP has done its job.

Now, where'd that d@mned windmill go? That's what I get for turning my back on the dastardly thing.

The defensive team would have got the arrow if the ball had been <b>legally</b> touched. If the AP switches on the defensive violation, as OS wants it to and you seem to agree with, the defensive team gains the arrow by committing a violation.

Can't we just go back to jump balls, the way the good Lord intended? :confused:

OMFG!

We had this debate on what the rule *should be* several times before they changed it. Now we've had it at least three times since they changed it.

Makes Don Quixote seem sane.

OS,Snaq:

A1 has ball OOB on an AP throw in.
B1 slaps ensuing throw-in OOB.
A retains throw-in because B1 caused the ball to go OOB.
A loses arrow because they blew their AP throw in.
B1 gains arrow with good, legal defense.
A blew their AP throw-in. Period.

Now, insert above, "B1 kicked the ball on ensuing throw-in."
With new rule wording, A1 retains throw-in (for the kick violation), and retains arrow.
B does NOT GET THE ARROW, now, for bad, "violation causing" defense.

The old way, B would be rewarded the arrow for a kick violation, not for good defense.

Wasn't he Diebler's point guard? :rolleyes:

I disagree with this statement right here. If the ball was tied-up on a APTI, the team inbounding would keep the possession. That is the way I understand this rule before the change. If Team B kicks the ball, or causes it to go out of bounds, Team A still gets to inbound again, even if the subsequent inbound is a tie-up. So you see, to me, nothing gained, nothing loss.

Okay CoachP, I will play along. You feel because of the kicking violation, you shouldn't lose possession. However, the back end of this change is where the problem lies. This is why I said the space shuttle exploded. That hole on the back side is so big you can fly the shuttle thru it. Now, the AP doesn't switch after a sucessful throw-in if the defense kicks the ball first. Next held ball, same team keeps. Do you understand my problem with this rule? If not consider this:

1st quarter, AP pointed to Team A.
Held ball, APTI to Team A
On the throw-in, kick ball Team B, Team A inbounds again.
New rule, Team A keeps AP even after successful TI because Team B kicked ball first.
2nd quarter, no held balls, team A inbounds because AP never changed
Team B kicks ball on start of 2nd quarter inbound which also happens to be the APTI.
Team A successfully inbounds after kick ball, arrow don't switch again because of new rule.
3rd quarter, no held balls, Team A gets possession again.

I'm beginning to see the problem here. You guys and the rulemakers are caught up on the wording here, no you are twisted up on the wording. A violation is a violation, whether I knock it OOB's with my feet, hand, chest, or teammate. It's still a violation, which btw, carries its own penality. If the old rule says touching of the ball changes the arrow, then so be it. I always thought the rule before the change meant successful inbound before the AP changed or offense violation.

Completely and utterly wrong. Again. Look it up.

Of course we're caught up in the wording! The wording is the essence of the rule. That's the point to this whole debate, confusion and difficulty. It's not that "we are twisted up on the wording" that's the problem. It's that the wording is not yet the best possible to convey the idea desired. We can't follow "the spirit of the rules" if we don't understand from the words which are used to convey the spirit of the rules. This is not a problem of "rule book officials" or "anal retentive lawyers" being obnoxcious jerks. It's a problem of using words well to properly convey thoughts.

When this thread started I had not received my Sportorial and, for some reason, could not access my online copy of it. And since I have been too busy officiating at team camps and watching my sons play baseball I did not want to get involved in this thread until I had had a chance to read Sportorial and see what it said. I am glad to see that Peter Webb clarified the Sportorial article.

And, yes, Mark has the right idea: GO BACK TO JUMP BALLS.

MTD, Sr.