New "AP Legal Touch" Rule/Different Interpretation

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.