![]() |
New "AP Legal Touch" Rule/Different Interpretation
I was at a one-day camp sponsored by my IAABO Board when the new NFHS rules were discussed. Contrary to the consensus on this board, my IAABO interpreter says that IAABO is saying the AP arrow change will occur essentially immediately -- following the (presumably) legal throw-in, not some time later in the game.
To review: Rule 4.42.5 was changed to say a throw-in ends when the pass is legally touched. In this thread, http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=35634 members here said this means that if there is a kick ball on an AP throw in, the resulting throw-in is for the kicking violation and that the next AP throw-in (next=later in the game; not this immediate throw-in) would go to the same team. IAABO is saying the throw-in that results from the kick is not for the kicking violation, but is essentially a "do over" of the AP throw-in, since the throw-in did not end because it was not touched legally. After administering this (second) throw-in, assuming it is now touched legally, the arrow is to be changed. The IAABO ruling: Previously a throw-in ended when the ball was touched in bounds or out of bounds by another player. The potential existed that an illegally touched ball (kicked or fisted) would cause the throw-in to end. The rules committee determined that a throw-in should not end with the commission of a violation. Example: An alternating-possession throw-in of A1 is kicked by B1. The throw-in ends as a result of the Team B violation and Team A retains the ball for another throw-in. But the Team A throw-in would not result in an alternating-possession throw in. That throw-in ended when the ball was kicked. With the introduction of this rule change, the throw-in would not end on the violation as the ball was not "legally touched" in bounds. The subsequent Team A throw-in is an alternating possession throw-in. The NFHS ruling: 4.42.5 SITUATION: Team A is awarded an alternating-possession throw-in. A1’s throw-in pass is illegally kicked by B2. RULING: As a result of B2’s kicking violation, Team A is awarded a throw-in at the designated spot nearest to where the violation occurred. Since the throw-in was not contacted “legally,” the throw-in had not ended. Therefore, the arrow remains with Team A for the next alternating-possession throw-in. (6-4-4) I showed the NFHS ruling to my IAABO interpreter and he says the phrase "next alternating-possession throw-in" does not refer to some future throw in, but to this immediate throw-in. So much for clarifying this -- for those of us who work for IAABO boards. The NFHS ruling is as clear as mud, since "next...throw-in" is ambiguous. I know that most of the posters here have said "next" is later in the game when there is another AP possession. But I can see where "next" is simply the next throw-in....or the one immediately following the kick ball. My interpreter said he would discuss this with the rules folks at IAABO. Stay tuned. |
Where did the "IAABO ruling" come from? I just visited the IAABO home page and didn't see it. In any case, your interpreter is just flat-out wrong. And if that's IAABO's interpretation, then they're flat-out wrong, too. The case play from NFHS is crystal clear.
I believe the IAABO interpreters' conference is coming up in a couple months. They better iron it out there. |
:D <i></i>
|
Quote:
I disagree that the NFHS case play is "crystal clear." It certainly was not clear to my interpreter and several other senior officials in my board. |
Quote:
Quote:
It ain't rocket science. |
Quote:
What does the Sportorial say? |
Quote:
It has the "IAABO ruling" that BayStateRef posted for us. It's exactly the same. But I think the IAABO ruling is more confusing than the FED rule itself. IAABO says: Quote:
|
Aw geeze, those IAABO guys. What a bunch....:rolleyes:
Silly monkeys. It's too bad that that the late but unlamented Chuck Elias isn't still around. He's an IAABO rules interpreter. He could maybe run this one down and straighten it out. For the life of me, I can't see how anybody could possibly come up with a ruling like that. It literally ignores completely what the FED is saying. Silly monkeys. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
The IAABO is right up there with FEEBLE in my book.
The FED rule is a helluva lot clearer than the IAABO interp. You may or may not like the FED ruling but it is exactly correct until changed. The IAABO interp means absolutely nothing to me or anyone else who's not a member. |
Quote:
2) A typo sounds just about right. I can't see Peter Webb screwing a rule up that badly. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Don't believe me? Check it out! It's is a joke. :) IAABO BOARD (203) |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
(btw, and for the record, I don't have to lament the passing of he-who-shall-not-be-named because he's fond of leaving me messages on my cell phone declaring he's going to be in town and demanding to be entertained while he's here... :rolleyes: ) |
Quote:
http://www.higgins.org/News/2005/foolery.jpg |
Quote:
|
Saying the same thing...in different words
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I believe Mass. or some other New England state uses a different rulebook entirely for high school <i>beisbol</i>. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Ok, back to the original topic of when the throw-in ends. In the Sportorials that BayStateRef mentioned, the new HS rule changes are printed, as are the NCAA changes. If Sportorials is accurate, the NCAA is going to the OLD high school rule. Here's the change, according to the newsletter:
NCAA 4-65-5: "A throw-in shall end when a passed ball is touched inbounds or out-of-bounds by another player on the playing court, before going out-of-bounds." This replaces the old 4-65-5, which said "A throw-in shall end when the passed ball is controlled by an inbounds player. The throw-in may be controlled or touched inbounds by the thrower-in after the ball touches or is legally touched by a player inbounds." The old rule was written that way to preserve the team control foul during the throw-in. Anybody else hear anything about this change? Anybody think we'll have the old HS problem with the AP situation? |
Other changes for NCAA include, men will use the women's alignment for free throws (bottom space empty), hair control devices (like pre-wrap) have to be the same color as the jersey -- or white, black or beige), and next season ('08-'09) the 3-point line will be moved back one foot.
And the calling official goes opposite the table. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The new NCAA doesn't necessary change that. It only says that the throwin may stop before player control is established....at the touch. It doesn't say the the throwin ends before the violation....they've created the ambiguity but that may be cleared up through other means. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Two humongous threads and he still doesn't get it. You're completely freaking <b>WRONG</b> again! B3 legally touched the throw-in in-bounds. That ends the throw-in. The arrow now changes to team B. <b>IT DOESN"T STAY WITH TEAM A!!!</b> After the arrow is changed, B3 knocks the ball OOB. Team A gets a throw-in for <b>THAT</b> violation. If you don't understand the basics, why post? |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
The AP is a "throw-in", and the rules specifically say when a throw-in ends. |
Quote:
2)Added the word in red for clarification...... |
Quote:
The arrow changes on a legal touch, not an illegal touch. Dem's the rules, like it or not. |
Quote:
2) You are right, thanks. I tried to make that clear in one of my earlier posts, but I didn't include that in this one. However, if you head over to the Int'l Date Line, you'll see I said that yesterday. Or tomorrow. :confused: |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
How would you handle this: A1 has the ball for an AP throw-in. Before the ball is passed inbounds, B2 fouls A2, and A is not yet in the bonus. Would you switch the arrow, and why? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm not sure I'm explaining that clearly, but I hope you follow what I'm trying to say. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Can't we just go back to jump balls, the way the good Lord intended? :confused:
|
OMFG!
We had this debate on what the rule *should be* several times before they changed it. Now we've had it at least three times since they changed it. Makes Don Quixote seem sane. |
OS,Snaq:
A1 has ball OOB on an AP throw in. B1 slaps ensuing throw-in OOB. A retains throw-in because B1 caused the ball to go OOB. A loses arrow because they blew their AP throw in. B1 gains arrow with good, legal defense. A blew their AP throw-in. Period. Now, insert above, "B1 kicked the ball on ensuing throw-in." With new rule wording, A1 retains throw-in (for the kick violation), and retains arrow. B does NOT GET THE ARROW, now, for bad, "violation causing" defense. The old way, B would be rewarded the arrow for a kick violation, not for good defense. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Okay CoachP, I will play along. You feel because of the kicking violation, you shouldn't lose possession. However, the back end of this change is where the problem lies. This is why I said the space shuttle exploded. That hole on the back side is so big you can fly the shuttle thru it. Now, the AP doesn't switch after a sucessful throw-in if the defense kicks the ball first. Next held ball, same team keeps. Do you understand my problem with this rule? If not consider this: 1st quarter, AP pointed to Team A. Held ball, APTI to Team A On the throw-in, kick ball Team B, Team A inbounds again. New rule, Team A keeps AP even after successful TI because Team B kicked ball first. 2nd quarter, no held balls, team A inbounds because AP never changed Team B kicks ball on start of 2nd quarter inbound which also happens to be the APTI. Team A successfully inbounds after kick ball, arrow don't switch again because of new rule. 3rd quarter, no held balls, Team A gets possession again. I'm beginning to see the problem here. You guys and the rulemakers are caught up on the wording here, no you are twisted up on the wording. A violation is a violation, whether I knock it OOB's with my feet, hand, chest, or teammate. It's still a violation, which btw, carries its own penality. If the old rule says touching of the ball changes the arrow, then so be it. I always thought the rule before the change meant successful inbound before the AP changed or offense violation. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Of course we're caught up in the wording! The wording is the essence of the rule. That's the point to this whole debate, confusion and difficulty. It's not that "we are twisted up on the wording" that's the problem. It's that the wording is not yet the best possible to convey the idea desired. We can't follow "the spirit of the rules" if we don't understand from the words which are used to convey the spirit of the rules. This is not a problem of "rule book officials" or "anal retentive lawyers" being obnoxcious jerks. It's a problem of using words well to properly convey thoughts. |
Quote:
When this thread started I had not received my Sportorial and, for some reason, could not access my online copy of it. And since I have been too busy officiating at team camps and watching my sons play baseball I did not want to get involved in this thread until I had had a chance to read Sportorial and see what it said. I am glad to see that Peter Webb clarified the Sportorial article. And, yes, Mark has the right idea: GO BACK TO JUMP BALLS. MTD, Sr. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Held ball, APTI to Team A. A1 ready to throw in, team B's coach, CoachP, calls Jurassic an old fart, and gets T'd. Team A shoots 2 free throws then inbounds again at half court. Team A keeps AP even after successful TI because of Team B's Technical. 2nd quarter, team A inbounds because AP never changed. Team B's coach, CoachP calls Rut a homer on start of 2nd quarter inbound which also happens to be the APTI. CoachP gets tossed, Mrs CoachP takes over. Team A shoots 2 free throws then inbounds again at half court. Team A successfully inbounds after FT's, arrow still doesn't switch because it was a technical foul throw-in. Start 3rd quarter, there were no held balls, Team A gets (arrow) possession again. Arrow hasn't changed since opening tip..... |
Quote:
Stupid us...... |
Quote:
That's the one where the thrower holds the ball through the plane and a defender ties it up before the ball is released on the throw-in. In that situation, the throwing team keeps the arrow on the held ball. Ya think maybe that one might keep Old School going for another 5 pages or so trying to figure out why? :D |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
According to the rules, which the brain wizards are twisted up on. Knocking the ball OOB with my hand is a violation, just like kicking the ball is a violation. Why are we punishing one violation more than the other when both are legitimate defensive tackics, defensive manuvers. 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, but now, we want to add an additional penality to it. The AP is now null and void. What's next, because I kicked the ball on the 3 on 1 fastbreak, let's award one point, or how about, let's force the inbound of the 3 on 1 kick ball violation on the F/B to only 1 defender in Team A frontcourt and 3 offensive players, so that the offense is giving an advantage from the defense kicking the ball. Where does it end..... |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A couple of notes; ANY foul that occurs before the APTI ends, by either team, does not cause a AP arrow change. Last, I would like to point you to Case Play 6.4.1: A team should never be given two successive APTI..... Hold the phone! As the famous Ninja Turtle would say. It's right there written in the rules. I rest my case...... |
Quote:
Silly monkey.....:rolleyes: |
Quote:
Case 1 (A with an AP throw in): B1 "legally" slaps ball OOB. A1 gets another Throw-in, but B now gets the arrow. Case 2 (A with an AP throw in): B1 "illegally" kicks the ball. A1 gets another throw-in. A keeps the arrow. Why punish "A" for something B committed illegally? And it is true, B1 may slap the ball with his hand away from A1 on a layup, or kick it away. Both stopped the easy bucket. Except kicking is a violation, ball is dead, and A retains possesion. B1 slapping ball away from A1 with with his hand keeps the ball live with a chance for B1-5 to recover it. THAT's great defense..... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
For example; the ability to run the endline on an inbound after a made basket doesn’t end if I (the defense) should kick the ball on the inbound. I still have the ability to run the endline after the kicking violation. However, if I reach in and foul, that’s a different story. BTW, remember that the AP replaced the jump ball. So in the event of a held ball, either team has a FAIR chance to receive possession. Fast forward that to the current APTI, we have done away with the fair chance or fair play of the situation. We have circumvented the jump ball/AP rule to something that doesn't even resemble what the original intent of the rule was. Now that the arrow is in your favor, defense doesn't have a fair chance to play the ball, because if I should happen to kick the ball, you get to keep the arrow for the next held ball. That’s BS. Quote:
I think we are over administering the APTI. |
Quote:
Slapping the ball is <b>NOT</b> 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 <b>DIFFERENT</b> and <b>SEPARATE</b> acts. Slapping = legal. Making the ball go OOB = illegal. They aren't the same damn thing. The <b>LEGAL</b> slap ended the throw-in. <b><font size = +3>SLAPPING THE BALL IS NOT A VIOLATION!!</font></b> <b>Deliberately</b> kicking the ball <b>IS</b> a violation. <b>Accidentally</b> kicking the ball is <b>NOT</b> a violation. <b>Accidentally</b> kicking the ball OOB <b>IS</b> 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.... :rolleyes: |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Both violations carry the same penality except one is now penalized more, and that is the heart of the arguement. Quote:
Quote:
Also, what rule or case are you using to back up you assertion that the APTI is "null and void"? |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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* |
It is very unlikely that an offensive player would intentionally kick the throw in from his/her own teammate.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
|
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! :D |
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I know that it's easy to get confused with all the nonsense that Old School keeps throwing in. It's best to simply ignore anything in his posts pertaining to rules. |
:p
You're slow. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make," -- Response to Debbi Fields' idea of starting Mrs. Fields' Cookies. |
Quote:
I notice how nobody wants to comment on kicking the ball after a made bucket doesn't take away running the endline privildege. We need to do the same thing here, but I don't write the rules, I just enforce them. |
Quote:
The kicked ball after a made bucket means the TI was not completed, therefore the team gets to do it again, complete with the endline priviledge. Just like a kicked ball during a APTI means the TI was not completed, so they get to do it again, complete with keeping the arrow. So, what was your question again? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:02pm. |