New "AP Legal Touch" Rule/Different Interpretation

[Ref in PA]

Originally Posted by Old School

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?

The defense cannot, by rule, kick the ball as part of a legitimate steal attempt. If you are letting those plays go in your games, I truly pity those who participate in the games you call. However, I hope you really do call those violations as they occur in your games.

Kicking the ball has always been a violation. Sometimes the defense will attempt to kick a passed ball because they are out of position and realize the only way to prevent the offensive play is to kick the ball. In that sense, kicking the ball could be a good defensive strategy. By doing this the defense gets a huge advantage because the play is now broken up and the defense gets to set up. At the same time the rules say using this ploy of kicking the ball is a violation and the offesive team will get the ball for a throw-in.

It is okay to be of the opinion that the rule should change as it is now written. I am sure the rules committee has many healthy discussions because members have differing opinions about specific situations (such as this one). At the same time, we should have the moral integrity to call the game the way the rules are written and not the way we would like them to be written. As refs, we should sustain the rules. But, we can endeavor to suggest change as opportunity arises.