New "AP Legal Touch" Rule/Different Interpretation

[rainmaker]

Look, OS. Say A1 releases the ball onto the court, and B1 slaps at the ball with his hand, and effectively stops the ball in the air, so that it drops to the ground and rolls slowly oob. That touch is legal, and now the APTI is finished, and the arrow switches, while the ball is rolling. In fact, the clock starts and should run during the rolling of the ball. because the throw-in was completed, the ball is live, and play is going forward.

B1 has caused the ball to go oob, and that is a violation yes, but only one violation. The penalty for that violation is that A gets the ball oob again. The arrow is not affected by the oob, because the APTI ended as soon as the ball was touched with the hand, and while the ball is rolling there isn't a violation to consider.

This is also true if B1 whacks the ball hard, and it flies oob, although it doesn't take very long. The touch was legal, the throw-in completed, the arrow switched, and THEN the violation is committed. See? If someone else jumps in and catches the ball that B1 batted, so that it stays in play, there is no violation. The violation isn't in touching the ball, but in the oob.

Now suppose that A1 releases the ball onto the court, and B1 kicks the ball. At the moment the foot touches, the violation is committed, and the ball is dead. Where the ball goes after that is irrelevant. Now the penalty for the kick is that A gets the ball for a throw-in. Even if someone jumps in and catches the ball that B1 kicked it doesn't matter. The violation was committed at the moment of contact, and the throw in wasn't completed.

The not-switching-the-arrow thing is not the penalty for the kick. The new throw in is. The no-switching-the-arrow thing is simply because the throw-in was never completed. There's still only one penalty for the kick and that's A getting the ball for a throw-in.

The penalty for B causing the ball to go oob in the first case, and for B kicking the ball in the second case is the same -- A gets the ball for a throw-in. No one "takes the arrow away" from B. They simply don't get it if they kick the ball, because the APTI wasn't completed. It's the same thing that would happen if B committed a foul during A's APTI. The penalty is for the foul, and the arrow isn't switched. A keeps the arrow, but not because B fouled. It's because the APTI wasn't completed. Why is that so hard to understand?

[Old School]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

The not-switching-the-arrow thing is not the penalty for the kick. The new throw in is. The no-switching-the-arrow thing is simply because the throw-in was never completed. There's still only one penalty for the kick and that's A getting the ball for a throw-in.

However, when you consider the endline priviledge remained after the kickball, so the TI is still a ELTI, and it is also a kickball TI. How come the subsequent TI can not still be the APTI, like the ELTI, which then the next legal touch would cause the arrow to switch? Which is the way it should be. Delaying the AP Switch permanently until the NEXT held/jump ball is double jeopardy for the defense.

The penalty for B causing the ball to go oob in the first case, and for B kicking the ball in the second case is the same -- A gets the ball for a throw-in. No one "takes the arrow away" from B. They simply don't get it if they kick the ball, because the APTI wasn't completed. It's the same thing that would happen if B committed a foul during A's APTI. The penalty is for the foul, and the arrow isn't switched. A keeps the arrow, but not because B fouled. It's because the APTI wasn't completed. Why is that so hard to understand?

The penality for the foul can have different consequences other than another immeditate inbound. I understand that, and unfortunately it is the same even if Team A commits the foul. However, something we have not talked about to much here. Why is it, if team A kicks the ball, the arrow switches but if Team B kicks the ball, the arrow remains, the APTI for this occurrence is now null and void? How is it that kicking the ball can have different penalities depending on who kicked it? The rule makers have really outdone themselves here.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Old School

However, when you consider the endline priviledge remained after the kickball, so the TI is still a ELTI, and it is also a kickball TI. How come the subsequent TI can not still be the APTI, like the ELTI, which then the next legal touch would cause the arrow to switch? Which is the way it should be. Delaying the AP Switch permanently until the NEXT held/jump ball is double jeopardy for the defense.

In the case of the ELTI, if the endline privilege were taken away when B kicks the ball, B would benefit. SO they don't take it away. But that's not the penalty for kicking the ball, it's just withholding a "reward" that shouldn't be given when an illegal move is made.

In the case of the APTI, if the arrow were switched when B kicks the ball, B would benefit. So they don't switch it. But that's not the penalty for kicking the ball, it's just withholding a "reward" that shouldn't be given when an illegal move is made.

Even the sentences, when written out, are parallel. Hmmm. Maybe it's because the situations are so similar!!

[Old School]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

In the case of the ELTI, if the endline privilege were taken away when B kicks the ball, B would benefit. SO they don't take it away. But that's not the penalty for kicking the ball, it's just withholding a "reward" that shouldn't be given when an illegal move is made.

Even the sentences, when written out, are parallel. Hmmm. Maybe it's because the situations are so similar!!

Right, but the difference between the two are signifiicant. The next inbound, I'm talking the very next inbound is a ELTI and a KBTI. Two to make one. On the APTI, instead of the next inbound, the very next inbound being a APTI and a KBTI, like the earlier that you so eloquently defend as being correct, the APTI becomes null and void. Why?

We are not talking switch the arrow, so the arrow doesn't switch. No advangate gained or lost, offense or defense. The next inbound, the APTI is still waiting to be determined. Much the same way as the endline priviledge remained in tack. Who benefits or loses if the APTI is still undetermined? No one! No one is put at an advantage or disadvantage if the APTI is still undetermined at this point. The next legal touch will determine the AP arrow. Putting it off completely, as the rule now says is bad business, imho. Now I know why the NBA doesn't use this. It makes no sense.

We have made the AP so complicated that it is a problem waiting to happen in NFHS games. Source of confusing at the table, the coaches swearing up and down that there opponents had the last throw-in, home team staff switching it in the last few minutes of the game in their favor of course, the list goes on. What a joke! It would be nice if the rulemakers got in sync with the pay because if they are going to increase our workload x2, be nice to increase the pay x2.

By engaging this thread on the AP, I have learned so much more about the AP. From now on, each game I'm going to go over this in detail completely with the scorekeeper to make sure we are all on the same page.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Old School

the coaches swearing up and down that there opponents had the last throw-in,

When a coach insists the opponents had the last throw-in (and the AP arrow is pointing to the opponents), the Davism is to tell the coach that, maybe he's right, and to make up for it, you'll give him the next two out of three. That usually quiets them down. If it doesn't, make it the next three out of five.

Think about it for a minute.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Old School

Right, but the difference between the two are signifiicant. The next inbound, I'm talking the very next inbound is a ELTI and a KBTI. Two to make one. On the APTI, instead of the next inbound, the very next inbound being a APTI and a KBTI, like the earlier that you so eloquently defend as being correct, the APTI becomes null and void. Why?

We are not talking switch the arrow, so the arrow doesn't switch. No advangate gained or lost, offense or defense. The next inbound, the APTI is still waiting to be determined. Much the same way as the endline priviledge remained in tack. Who benefits or loses if the APTI is still undetermined? No one! No one is put at an advantage or disadvantage if the APTI is still undetermined at this point. The next legal touch will determine the AP arrow. Putting it off completely, as the rule now says is bad business, imho. Now I know why the NBA doesn't use this. It makes no sense.

We have made the AP so complicated that it is a problem waiting to happen in NFHS games. Source of confusing at the table, the coaches swearing up and down that there opponents had the last throw-in, home team staff switching it in the last few minutes of the game in their favor of course, the list goes on. What a joke! It would be nice if the rulemakers got in sync with the pay because if they are going to increase our workload x2, be nice to increase the pay x2.

By engaging this thread on the AP, I have learned so much more about the AP. From now on, each game I'm going to go over this in detail completely with the scorekeeper to make sure we are all on the same page.

I know that generally, we aren't supposed to critique people's grammar and syntax, but I really can't respond to your post because I can't parse out what you're trying to say.

But I do know that it's not all that complicated. The number of times that a ball gets kicked on an AP throw-in is probably 10 times per season per state, and that's not any huge deal. It doesn't increase our workload x2. It DOES give our evaluators and assignors a chance to weed out the real refs who study and apply the rules from the ones who just hope they look good. I don't need extra pay for that.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I know that generally, we aren't supposed to critique people's grammar and syntax

Says who?

but I really can't respond to your post because I can't parse out what you're trying to say.

I've stopped trying with him.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by rainmaker
I know that generally, we aren't supposed to critique people's grammar and syntax

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Says who?

Do you mean "says whom"?