New "AP Legal Touch" Rule/Different Interpretation

[Old School]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Yes, so what is your point? The AP arrow is, by nature, for a throw-in in the future.

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

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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 all game long if we have the right situations happen. So what?

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Old School

The results is still the same you moron!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The rule has already been passed, *****.

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

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.

[Ref in PA]

Originally Posted by Old School

Yes! Outcome of said play is the same.

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[Adam]

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.

[M&M Guy]

Google is the greatest invention since sliced bread.

And, Fridays are even better.

[Adam]

But Fridays were invented before sliced bread.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

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 closes 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.

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

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, and they still get the arrow for later. Is this a correct assumption of your position?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

But Fridays were invented before sliced bread.

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

[Old School]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Hold the phone! You're agreeing with me! Yes, finally!

The kicked ball after a made bucket means the TI was not completed, therefore the team gets to do it again, complete with the endline priviledge.

Just like a kicked ball during a APTI means the TI was not completed, so they get to do it again, complete with keeping the arrow.

So, what was your question again?

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Old School

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

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

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.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

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....

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?

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Old School

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.