New "AP Legal Touch" Rule/Different Interpretation

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

He is the president, interpreter, trainer, secretary and treasurer of "his" board.

Geeze, does he wash the dishes too?

I guess that if he doesn't have any high schools to assign, it really doesn't matter if he uses an IAABO interpretation that is different than a state governing body interpretation, not to mention being completely opposite to the NFHS rule and case play.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I guess that if he doesn't have any high schools to assign . . .

That was my thought, too. If the board exists solely so this guy can assign non-high school games, then it doesn't matter that he's the only "executive" of the board. Does he hold board meetings, give an annual test and all that?

The "joke" seems to be that he was required to join IAABO in the first place. Whose idea was that? There's no IAABO officials in the whole state, except this guy's rec league officials? That makes no sense to me at all.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

That was my thought, too. If the board exists solely so this guy can assign non-high school games, then it doesn't matter that he's the only "executive" of the board. Does he hold board meetings, give an annual test and all that?

The "joke" seems to be that he was required to join IAABO in the first place. Whose idea was that? There's no IAABO officials in the whole state, except this guy's rec league officials? That makes no sense to me at all.

No. It collects money from the leagues and even pays some of it out.

[BayStateRef]

It turns out that IAABO and the NFHS are saying the same thing....the immediate throw-in following the kick ball is for the violation, not another alternating-possession throw-in.

This is the clarificatin from Peter Webb, who is IAABO's top rules guy, who responded to my email about this disparity. Peter said the intent of the change is to have the same result for the kicking violation as if there were a foul on an alternating possesison throw-in.

This is from Peter's email:

The violation for "kicking" causes the very next/subsequent throw-in to be because of the kicking violation, it is a new throw-in situation. Team A would not lose the APTI. The arrow would not change as the AP throw-in has not ended. The next/subsequent jump ball/held ball ruling would be a APTI for Team A.

Next time I will wait until I hear directly from Peter before posting to this forum.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

It turns out that IAABO and the NFHS are saying the same thing....the immediate throw-in following the kick ball is for the violation, not another alternating-possession throw-in.

I had a feeling that's the response you'd get. As I said, after re-reading the IAABO ruling, my thought was that there was simply a typo in the last sentence. Thanks for following up. I'm very happy to hear the response.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

Next time I will wait until I hear directly from Peter before posting to this forum.

Nah, it's so slow here lately, we need stuff to complain about.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

It turns out that IAABO and the NFHS are saying the same thing....

Well, as soon as IAABO retracts or amends what they wrote in their sportorial they will be.

Just for any non-officials that might read this.....NFHS is the sole rules-making body for high school level basketball. IAABO is an officials association that tries to interpret those NFHS rules for it's members only, wrongly in some instances as you can see.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Just for any non-officials that might read this.....NFHS is the sole rules-making body for high school level basketball.

NFHS is the only rules-making body that publishes a complete rulebook, as far as I know. But many states have their own committees that make the rules for those states. Any state that requires mouthguards, or plays 18-minute halves, or utilizes a shot-clock has its own rules-making body. NFHS isn't the only body that can make rules for HS.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

NFHS is the only rules-making body that publishes a complete rulebook, as far as I know. But many states have their own committees that make the rules for those states. Any state that requires mouthguards, or plays 18-minute halves, or utilizes a shot-clock has its own rules-making body. NFHS isn't the only body that can make rules for HS.

Yup, but the states that do this without NFHS approval also risk losing representation to the applicable NFHS rules committee.

I believe Mass. or some other New England state uses a different rulebook entirely for high school beisbol.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

It turns out that IAABO and the NFHS are saying the same thing....the immediate throw-in following the kick ball is for the violation, not another alternating-possession throw-in.

This is the clarificatin from Peter Webb, who is IAABO's top rules guy, who responded to my email about this disparity. Peter said the intent of the change is to have the same result for the kicking violation as if there were a foul on an alternating possesison throw-in.


This is from Peter's email:

The violation for "kicking" causes the very next/subsequent throw-in to be because of the kicking violation, it is a new throw-in situation. Team A would not lose the APTI. The arrow would not change as the AP throw-in has not ended. The next/subsequent jump ball/held ball ruling would be a APTI for Team A.

Next time I will wait until I hear directly from Peter before posting to this forum.

Don't sweat it. I'm just glad that he got it right!

[Old School]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

It turns out that IAABO and the NFHS are saying the same thing....the immediate throw-in following the kick ball is for the violation, not another alternating-possession throw-in.

This is the clarificatin from Peter Webb, who is IAABO's top rules guy, who responded to my email about this disparity. Peter said the intent of the change is to have the same result for the kicking violation as if there were a foul on an alternating possesison throw-in.

This is from Peter's email:

The violation for "kicking" causes the very next/subsequent throw-in to be because of the kicking violation, it is a new throw-in situation. Team A would not lose the APTI. The arrow would not change as the AP throw-in has not ended. The next/subsequent jump ball/held ball ruling would be a APTI for Team A.

Next time I will wait until I hear directly from Peter before posting to this forum.

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

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 legally touched by a player.

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Old School

The OP stated as well as many others that there associations,when discussing this change couldn't come to an agreement.

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.

Originally Posted by Old School

I just think we can do better and as offcials we should demand better rule changes from our rule makers.

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.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, are you saying kicking the ball is good defense?

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.

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?

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.

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by Old School

Teams retaining the AP 3, 4, 5 times or more in a row defeats the purpose of the AP.

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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by CoachP

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?

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.