New "AP Legal Touch" Rule/Different Interpretation

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Again, and as always, you don't understand rules basics. You also completely fail to understand what you are being told.

Slapping the ball is NOT a violation. Making the ball go OOB is a violation, but whether the ball was "slapped" or not hasn't got a damn thing to do with that violation. They're completely DIFFERENT and SEPARATE acts. Slapping = legal. Making the ball go OOB = illegal. They aren't the same damn thing.

The LEGAL slap ended the throw-in.

SLAPPING THE BALL IS NOT A VIOLATION!!

Deliberately kicking the ball IS a violation. Accidentally kicking the ball is NOT a violation. Accidentally kicking the ball OOB IS a violation, but the violation is for making the ball go OOB, not accidentally kicking it.

You just don't have a freaking clue what you're talking about, but you absolutely refuse to shut your mouth and try to learn something instead.

Silly monkey....

The results is still the same you xxxx! It doesn't matter to me if you kick the ball, slapped the ball, intentionally, accidentally, deliberately, whatever freaking adjective you want to put on it, you still knocked it OOB! VIOLATION!!!!! Guess what else Mr.Knowitall? All these violations you just mentioned has there own penailty, and guess what that is? The penalities are all the same!!! So if the penality is the same, why the sam-blasted blah, blah blah, should I care what type of violation was just committed?

Okay, I understand where you have gone in and dinked the rule up with the slap OOB. Because I slapped it, the AP has ended even though the throwin was not successful. Got it! Problem is, if I slapped it OOB, we're still at the TI, if I kick it, we're still at the TI. One rules the AP has ended, the other rules the AP is not only, "not ended", but it is now null and void as if it NEVER HAPPENED! Both violations carry the same penality except one is now penalized more, and that is the heart of the arguement.

The rational behind the additional penality is at the heart of my arguement. The pay load on the back end, multiple successive APTI in a row changes the original intent of this rule. Not to mention Case Play 6.4.1 Sit D. says a team should not get successive APTI, but your fluky dukie new rule, null and void the AP. It's like it never happened. Logic like this will cause the space shuttle to blow up on takeoff.

Let me break it down to you this way JR, aka Master Silly Monkey. If it wasn't for the APTI, you couldn't have had the kick ball. So, without the hen there can't be an egg. So what I'm saying is the kick ball can not negate the APTI. Either we go back to the APTI or the arrow must change, the same way it did for the slap OOB. If you negate the APTI after the kick, you are saying it never happened and that's wrong, that's not an option. Get it?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Old School

The results is still the same you moron! It doesn't matter to me if you kick the ball, slapped the ball, intentionally, accidentally, deliberately, whatever freaking adjective you want to put on it, you still knocked it OOB! VIOLATION!!!!! Guess what else Mr.Knowitall? All these violations you just mentioned has there own penailty, and guess what that is? The penalities are all the same!!! So if the penality is the same, why the sam-blasted blah, blah blah, should I care what type of violation was just committed?

Okay, I understand where you have gone in and dinked the rule up with the slap OOB. Because I slapped it, the AP has ended even though the throwin was not successful. Got it! Problem is, if I slapped it OOB, we're still at the TI, if I kick it, we're still at the TI. One rules the AP has ended, the other rules the AP is not only, "not ended", but it is now null and void as if it NEVER HAPPENED! Both violations carry the same penality except one is now penalized more, and that is the heart of the arguement.

The rational behind the additional penality is at the heart of my arguement. The pay load on the back end, multiple successive APTI in a row changes the original intent of this rule. Not to mention Case Play 6.4.1 Sit D. says a team should not get successive APTI, but your fluky dukie new rule, null and void the AP. It's like it never happened. Logic like this will cause the space shuttle to blow up on takeoff.

Let me break it down to you this way JR, aka Master Silly Monkey. If it wasn't for the APTI, you couldn't have had the kick ball. So, without the hen there can't be an egg. So what I'm saying is the kick ball can not negate the APTI. Either we go back to the APTI or the arrow must change, the same way it did for the slap OOB. If you negate the APTI after the kick, you are saying it never happened and that's wrong, that's not an option. Get it?

Old School:

I am going to hate myself in the morning, but xxxx! Read the damn definition of a throw-in and what it says about passing the ball such that it crosses through the plane of the boundary line where the throw-in spot is, and the ball is then LEGALLY touched by a player on the court (either inbounds or out-of-bounds). PLEASE, PLEASE, I beg you to take a baseketball officiating class and learn the rules and how to apply them. You are giving everybody headaches with your nonsense.

MTD, Sr.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Old School

The results is still the same you moron! It doesn't matter to me if you kick the ball, slapped the ball, intentionally, accidentally, deliberately, whatever freaking adjective you want to put on it, you still knocked it OOB! VIOLATION!!!!!

Are you saying the kick and knocking the ball OOB are exactly the same?

Think about it - when does the violation actually occur? On the kick, the violation happens the instant the ball is intentionally touched with the leg. On the OOB, the violation occurs only when the ball touches OOB, not when it touches the player. A1 throws the ball in, A2 slaps it, it bounces 17 times all the way down the floor and goes OOB on the far baseline. Where do you put the ball in play for the next throw-in? Are you are saying the violation occurs on the slap? If so, then would you give the ball to B to throw-in closest to where A2 slapped it? Or would you take the throw-in closest to where the ball went OOB?

Or, let's say after A2 slaps it, and just before it touches OOB, A3 grabs it. Is there still a violation on the slap?

Originally Posted by Old School

Okay, I understand where you have gone in and dinked the rule up with the slap OOB.

Um, no you don't understand. The rule has not been "dinked up", it is exactly the same.

Originally Posted by Old School

Because I slapped it, the AP has ended even though the throwin was not successful. Got it!

Um, wrong again. The throw-in was successful because it legally touched a player in-bounds.

Originally Posted by Old School

Problem is, if I slapped it OOB, we're still at the TI, if I kick it, we're still at the TI. One rules the AP has ended, the other rules the AP is not only, "not ended", but it is now null and void as if it NEVER HAPPENED!

Problem is you are talking about two different TI's. If A1 slaps the the ball OOB, the AP throw-in has ended, the arrow is switched to B, and then B gets the ball for the violation TI, and will also get the next APTI. If the ball is kicked, the original APTI never ended, so the arrow will stay the same.

Both violations carry the same penality except one is now penalized more, and that is the heart of the arguement.

Originally Posted by Old School

The rational behind the additional penality is at the heart of my arguement.

What additional penalty are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Old School

The pay load on the back end, multiple successive APTI in a row changes the original intent of this rule. Not to mention Case Play 6.4.1 Sit D. says a team should not get successive APTI, but your fluky dukie new rule, null and void the AP.

Please read that specific case play again, and give me the last line of that play, and how it applies to your argument.

Also, what rule or case are you using to back up you assertion that the APTI is "null and void"?

[KCRef]

Originally Posted by Old School

Got news for you coach, doesn't matter which teams committs the technical. Arrow is not switched.

If you are saying that the technical is different than the kick violation in that one does matter and one doesn't matter which team committed the foul/violation, then I disagree. I don't believe it matters which team committs the kick violation either. The arrow is not switched in that situation either.

On a APTI for team A, if offense A1 kicks the inbounds pass, then team B would get the throwin for the violation, but the arrow would still be for team A because the APTI never ended.

With your interpretation, team B would get the throwin and the arrow. I believe that to be wrong.

[bronco]

Originally Posted by KCRef

If you are saying that the technical is different than the kick violation in that one does matter and one doesn't matter which team committed the foul/violation, then I disagree. I don't believe it matters which team committs the kick violation either. The arrow is not switched in that situation either.

On a APTI for team A, if offense A1 kicks the inbounds pass, then team B would get the throwin for the violation, but the arrow would still be for team A because the APTI never ended.

With your interpretation, team B would get the throwin and the arrow. I believe that to be wrong.

I think this is why the AP should give a team the attempt at a throw-in. Most of the focus has been on not rewarding team B for committing a violation while defending, but in this case, team A committed the violation. Team B did nothing wrong, yet A still keeps the arrow for the next APTI. Am I correct in this interpration?

I'm just saying, I think that is how it should be, but there are rules at every level I would like to see changed, so is one more thing I can't really complain about since I can't change it.*shrug*

[Smitty]

It is very unlikely that an offensive player would intentionally kick the throw in from his/her own teammate.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bronco

Most of the focus has been on not rewarding team B for committing a violation while defending, but in this case, team A committed the violation. Team B did nothing wrong, yet A still keeps the arrow for the next APTI. Am I correct in this interpration?

No, you're completely wrong. Team A loses the arrow for committing a violation on their AP throw-in. NFHS rules 6-4-4&5.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Are you saying the kick and knocking the ball OOB are exactly the same?

Yes! Outcome of said play is the same.

Think about it - when does the violation actually occur? On the kick, the violation happens the instant the ball is intentionally touched with the leg. On the OOB, the violation occurs only when the ball touches OOB, not when it touches the player. A1 throws the ball in, A2 slaps it, it bounces 17 times all the way down the floor and goes OOB on the far baseline. Where do you put the ball in play for the next throw-in? Are you are saying the violation occurs on the slap? If so, then would you give the ball to B to throw-in closest to where A2 slapped it? Or would you take the throw-in closest to where the ball went OOB?

No, the violation does not occur on the slap, it occurs when it goes OOB and if you where the last one to touch it, you have committed a violation. It does not matter where the damn ball is inbounded. The fact is the same team that was awarded the APTI retains the new inbound after any of these violations.

Now if you want to argue that if the inbound spot is not the same, then we are on to something else. I could appreciate that but it doesn't change the fact. However, if the spot of the APTI has not changed, the APTI has not ended, just like running the endline privileged has not ended because of the kick ball violation. Remember that rule?

You can not say the AP has not ended after I attempted to throw the ball in, therefore, the next held or jump ball goes to me again. That’s like saying if you borrow some money from the bank, $100 dollars, but before you leave the bank, you lose the money. Well, that doesn't change the fact that the bank gave you the money, and guess what, you owe that money back. Once the bank gives you the money, OR once I hand you the ball from the APTI. The arrow has to change or we better have a foul. You can not say that because I kicked the ball, the AP now stays with the same team again while they get to inbound the ball again. That's like saying the APTI never happened. That's like saying the bank never gave you the money. The banks doesn't care if you lost it and I don't care if you kicked the ball on the inbound. The fact that you get another inbound means the violation was harmless. We now have a responsiblity to take care of that arrow.

Basketball is really a simple game. If you don't understand the game, don't monkey with the rules or try to defend a rule that makes no sense.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by KCRef

On a APTI for team A, if offense A1 kicks the inbounds pass, then team B would get the throwin for the violation, but the arrow would still be for team A because the APTI never ended.

Nope, team A loses the arrow. NFHS rules 6-4-4&5.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Smitty

It is very unlikely that an offensive player would intentionally kick the throw in from his/her own teammate.

And if they did, they would lose the ball and the arrow. Have no problem with that outcome.

[SmokeEater]

Wow this is better than an afternoon soap..... OS you have proven yet once again you really don't get it. Congratulations, I would rarely add to one of your idiotic posts but can't resist.

For anyone who cares the answer has been posted repeatedly by competent and knowledgable officials. One violation results after a legal touch (slap the ball which then goes OB), the other violation is an illegal touch (kicked ball). The APTI is retained by the team throwing in the ball should the illegal touch be committed by a defender. Otherwise the APTI has ended and the arrow gets reversed. I hope I am interpreting what everyone other than OS is saying correctly.

[KCRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Nope, team A loses the arrow. NFHS rules 6-4-4&5.

Oops. Thanks.

[CoachP]

Old School :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.

M&M Guy: So, are you saying kicking the ball is good defense?
Old School: No, I am not but what does the kick ball have to do with the AP.

Later……

Old School: 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?

Later……

Old School: “If I can prevent an easy score, I'm kicking the ball. Another example; if we got a 3 on 1 fast break and I kick the ball as the lone defensive player back. I just broke up a fast break bucket! That's great defense! That's an athletic and intelligent play”

Maybe OS has a future in broadcasting. Especially if you throw in (no pun intended) the space shuttle stories and losing money in the bank!

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Old School

You can not say the AP has not ended after I attempted to throw the ball in, therefore, the next held or jump ball goes to me again.

Well, the only reason I'm saying that is because that's what the rule says.

Originally Posted by Old School

That’s like saying if you borrow some money from the bank, $100 dollars, but before you leave the bank, you lose the money. Well, that doesn't change the fact that the bank gave you the money, and guess what, you owe that money back.

Ok, I'll play along. This statement is correct, and a good example of my point. What if you sit down at the banker's desk, sign all the paperwork, get the free toaster and monogrammed pen, and they forget to hand you the $100. Do you still owe them? Of course not; just because most of the qualifications of a loan have been met, doesn't mean all of them have been met. The same thing applies to the rules on a throw-in: the ball is handed to the player for a TI, and the ball is passed unto the playing court. Most of the qualifications have been met, but not all. What's missing? The legal touch by a player in-bounds. That's what ends the APTI. A kick is not a legal touch, therefore the APTI hasn't ended. Just like when the banker hands you the check after completing all the paperwork, that's what ends the loan process. If the banker hands you a Monopoly $100 bill, you would not owe $100 in real money back to the bank, because it was not a legal transfer of money, therefore the loan process is not yet complete.

Now, let's go to your other example - as you're walking out the door of the bank with your crisp, new $100 bill, you lose it, before you even get past the guard. Would you still owe the bank? Yep; what happens after the loan is complete has nothing to do with the loan process. The same with the APTI - once the APTI is complete, by rule, what happens after that has nothing to do with the APTI. If the player touches it, legally, in-bounds, then the arrow switches, and what happens after that (the ball going OOB) has nothing to do with the arrow.

Originally Posted by Old School

Basketball is really a simple game. If you don't understand the game, don't monkey with the rules or try to defend a statement that makes no sense.

Good advice. You should follow it more often. Please.

[bronco]

What about if team A throws an inbounds pass that is not touched by any player, and the ball goes out of bounds? Team B would get the throw-in for the OOB violation, but would team A keep the arrow, since the APTI was never legally touched inbounds? That is the only other example I can think of where team B could not do anything wrong while playing defense, and still not get the arrow for the next AP. Of course, I'm not sure if that is what would happen.