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>

The IAABO ruling is in the current newsletter...which I received on Saturday. I believe it was written by Peter Webb -- who is on the NFHS Rules Committee. My interpreter said he would talk with Peter about it...and would be sure that it is discussed at the IAABO meeting in September.

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.

Do you mean the Sportorials? I haven't gotten mine yet, but I think I can read it online.

Hard for me to see how "the arrow remains with Team A for the next alternating-possession throw-in" could be confusing. The throw-in after the kick is the result of a kicking violation, not a held ball. It is quite simply NOT an AP throw-in. The arrow is not switched until the NEXT alternating possession throw-in. Therefore. . .

It ain't rocket science.

So......?

What does the Sportorial say?

Jeez, you're impatient. :)

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:

The two highlighted sentences seem to contradict each other. The first sentence doesn't even make sense, to be honest. What does it mean to say that a throw-in does not result in a throw-in? I think what they mean is that the throw-in is NOT an AP throw-in. But then that directly contradicts the last sentence of the paragraph. Perhaps it's a typo. It's been known to happen.

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.

That seems to border on lamenting. ("To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.")

The more I think about it, the more I think the last sentence is just a typo. Hopefully, what they meant was that the resulting throw-in is not an AP throw-in, which would match what they seem to mean in the earlier part of the paragraph.

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.

1) Enemy? Maybe he really might be lamented then(not by Dan though). I got nothing but respect for the l'il sh!t when it comes to the rules. He is wise beyond his height.

2) A typo sounds just about right. I can't see Peter Webb screwing a rule up that badly.

It also only means something to the IAABO members who live in a state where IAABO is recognized as the state rules governing body. Any IAABO members in NC, say, would have to go by how the NC governing body interprets the rule.

There's only one IAABO board in NC. It's run by a guy who, I'll just say, is no longer a member of our association. He signed up for IAABO because he had to have credentials of some type in order to run his organization of rec officials. He is the president, interpreter, trainer, secretary and treasurer of "his" board. :D

Don't believe me? Check it out! It's is a joke. :)

IAABO BOARD (203)

Geeze, does he wash the dishes too?:rolleyes:

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.

That was my thought, too. If the board exists solely so this guy can assign non-high school games, then it doesn't matter that he's the only "executive" of the board. Does he hold board meetings, give an annual test and all that?

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.

Me too. And on top of that he-who-shall-not-be-named is mildly interesting while only somewhat annoying.

(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: )

If it'll make you feel any better, he does say that you're actually quite good at the entertaining part....

http://www.higgins.org/News/2005/foolery.jpg

No. It collects money from the leagues and even pays some of it out.

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.

I had a feeling that's the response you'd get. As I said, after re-reading the IAABO ruling, my thought was that there was simply a typo in the last sentence. Thanks for following up. I'm very happy to hear the response.

Nah, it's so slow here lately, we need stuff to complain about. :)

Well, as soon as IAABO retracts or amends what they wrote in their sportorial they will be.:)

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.

NFHS is the only rules-making body that publishes a complete rulebook, as far as I know. But many states have their own committees that make the rules for those states. Any state that requires mouthguards, or plays 18-minute halves, or utilizes a shot-clock has its own rules-making body. NFHS isn't the only body that can make rules for HS.

Yup, but the states that do this without NFHS approval also risk losing representation to the applicable NFHS rules committee.

I believe Mass. or some other New England state uses a different rulebook entirely for high school <i>beisbol</i>.

Don't sweat it. I'm just glad that he got it right! ;)

Or any state that requires each team to have a coach on the sideline for a game to continue.

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.

The latter two changes (3-point line; go opposite) are NCAAM only. Someone who posted here for a short while included a sig to the effect that "any NCCA rulings in this post are for NCAAM only." You might consider that.

I vaguely remember that person. Can't remember his name though.

I don't think so. The issue with the NFHS old rule was that the ending of the throwin relative to the violation was ambiguous....which was first? The violation? or the touch? Which order to apply the rulings was in question. It's not really a change but a clarification....or the filling of a hole in the rule.

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.

Okay, I see where they where attempting to plug a hole in the rules with this new rule. However, I just don't think the hole needed to be plugged, and the new rule has made it worse, imo.

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.

I know you're not seeing it, because you're looking in the wrong place. Your statement above, in red, is incorrect. The arrow switches immediately after the throw-in ends, per rule 6-4-4. A throw-in ends when the passed ball touches, or is touched by another player, as per rule 4-42-5, (up to 2006). It does not need to be controlled by either team for the arrow to switch. The hole, as you put it, is the question of what kind of touch constitutes the end of the throw-in. Can a kick, which is an illegal touch, be a touch that ends the throw-in, and in the case of an AP throw-in, switch the arrow? That is what has been argued in the past. This year, the rules committee decided to plug that hole and eliminate the argument by stating the throw-in ends when the ball is <B>legally</B> touched by a player.

So, are you saying kicking the ball is good defense? These types of statements diminish your credibility. No wise (basketball) man would ever state this. The reason team A gets another throw-in is because team B kicked the ball. If, during the next throw-in, team B kicks it again, team A will get another throw-in. If team B kicks it 5 times in a row, team A will get 5 throw-ins in a row. Are you saying that's just not fair to team B?

Actually, if you go back and read the entire thread, you'll see the ruling actually does agree with the NFHS rule change; the original association ruling appears to be a typo in the association publication.

Actually, I believe most of us demand better rules knowledge from our fellow officials. I hope you've learned something today. Confucius (a very wise man) once said, "The journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step." I hope your journey to the land of rules knowledge has begun today.

No, I am not but what does the kick ball have to do with the AP. Nothing, it is a violation that carries it's own penality.

Wrong! This is the heart of the problem. We are not talking about 5 throw-in's. We are talking about 5 consecutive AP's on a held or jump ball going to the same team because of a violation on the inbound which carries it's own penality. Now, you have doubled the penality for the kick ball, or even if the ball goes out on me (Team B) on a throw-in after the AP. It's ridiculous!

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.

Unbelievable!!:rolleyes:

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?

Say what?

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?

There's hope for you yet.

Whoops, I spoke too soon. You are incorrect. In your example above, as soon as B3 touches the ball, the arrow is switched because the ball was touched by a player in-bounds. The OOB violation doesn't occur until the ball goes OOB <B>after</B> the touch by B3. So, in your example, the arrow switches, and A will get the ball for the throw-in. Also, this is how it has been handled in the past, this is how it will be handled in the future, and this has nothing to do with the rule wording change. The change has to do with the touch actually being a violation, not a touch, then a violation. Do you see the difference?

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.

1) No, there isn't.

2)Added the word in red for clarification......

An AP if you follow Old School's logic.....

The arrow changes on a legal touch, not an illegal touch. Dem's the rules, like it or not.

1) Hope springs eternal. (I think some wise man said that...)

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:

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?

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.

Is this a rhetorical question? ;)

No, you're not wrong here. It would be a pointless strategy because they'd get the arrow anyway.

The freaking arrow!!! How many freaking times do you have to be told that? The defensive team commits a violation, and by doing so, they gain an AP.

Yes. Let's begin:

That is not the rule, has not been the rule, and will not be the rule. If the ball is tied up, there is no violation, all the previous and current rules about the throw-in ending have occured, so the arrow will switch to team B once the ball is leagally touched in-bounds, which would be the tie-up.

How is the arrow <B>permanently</B> set to one team or the other? How is the AP "null and void"? Do you have any rules references to back those statements up?

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?

JR, how do they gain the arrow by kicking the ball? they would have gotten the arrow, so they gained nothing.

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.

The defensive team would have got the arrow if the ball had been <b>legally</b> touched. If the AP switches on the defensive violation, as OS wants it to and you seem to agree with, the defensive team gains the arrow by committing a violation.

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.

Wasn't he Diebler's point guard? :rolleyes:

I disagree with this statement right here. If the ball was tied-up on a APTI, the team inbounding would keep the possession. That is the way I understand this rule before the change. If Team B kicks the ball, or causes it to go out of bounds, Team A still gets to inbound again, even if the subsequent inbound is a tie-up. So you see, to me, nothing gained, nothing loss.

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.

Completely and utterly wrong. Again. Look it up.

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.

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.

No, team A now has a throw in for the kicking violation per new rule.

Correct, because the throw in is now for the kicking violation. Next held ball remains with A because they never had an AP throw-in yet.

1st quarter, AP pointed to Team A.

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.....

Yup, we all insist on calling the rule the way that it was written and intended to be called.

Stupid us......

Casebook play 6.4.5SitB?

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

Aw, geeze, I can't even tell you where to go, because you're already there!

On which rule or case do you base this statement?

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.

For some reason this always cracks me up. Thanks JMO!

Okay, so for a kicking violation we now null and void the AP. Consider this, base line APTI. Players line up, ball put in play, offense does that weave that after several rotations has a player coming to the basket for an open uncontested layup. Pass is a bounce pass which I stick my leg out to defend and kick the ball back OOB. I don't kick the ball, teams got a easy score, even worse a open layup. You know what type of play I'm talking about. This is preventing a score, which is what the defense is taught to do. Remember, the Intent and Purpose of the rule. The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a BALANCE OF FAIR PLAY, TO PROVIDE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY BETWEEN THE OFFENSE AND THE DEFENSE.

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.....

First of all, that is not a T. You can't give a T to something that is true, but let's continue....

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

#1, in my game and you said that about JRUT, I would say he's also a smart azz who thinks he's god gift to officating, but what else is new. Not giving a T for a coach speaking his mind in the heat of battle. Continuing on....

To be honest, I didn't know this was there. Thanks for sharing the examples with me. I think it might be from the multiple games in a day where we must keep the possession. We just try and make sure we don't forget to switch it, much less these little details. I will start to look for it more in my suimmer leagues games.

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......

The porch light is on, but nobody's home.

Silly monkey.....:rolleyes:

Sigh........After either violation by B1 (a kick or a slap OOB), A1 gets the ball to throw in.

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.....

I didn't switch it.

So tell me, by rule, when does the APTI throw in end? :rolleyes:

Excuse me coach, not to be argumentative but it is not legal to slap the ball OOB. Rule 9 Violations and Penalties Section 3 Art. 1 says a player shall not cause the ball to go OOB. So, it is an illegal act to slap the ball OOB, it is a violation by rule. You say it is LEGAL, I say it is not. I am supported by the definition in the rule book. You base your argument (which btw is a legitimate argument) that you should not lose the arrow on a kick ball violation. I agree you shouldn’t. So how do we define this in writing. Very simple. The APTI does not end on an OOB violation by the defense.

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.

How about I rephrase your question. Why terminate the APTI when legal possession was never obtained and the same team is still inbounding the ball? Why? It matters not that I kick it OOB or legally slap it OOB (which btw, is an illegal act by rule). Unless we have a foul, we should still be under the APTI. Just like I can't have a kick ball violation if I'm tossing the ball in the air on the jump, center circle. However, if I foul or slap it OOB on or after my jump toss, possession is obtained to my opponent legally. The difference is, I have a fair chance to get possession on the next held ball.

I think we are over administering the APTI.

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 <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:

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?

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.

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?

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

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

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.

What additional penalty are you talking about?

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"?

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*

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

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.

Yes! Outcome of said play is the same.

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.

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

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

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.

Oops. Thanks.

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

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

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 <B>most</B> of the qualifications of a loan have been met, doesn't mean <B>all</B> 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. <B>Most</B> 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.

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

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.

Bronco, don't forget about 6-4-5, where if the throw-in team violates, they also lose the arrow. Throwing the ball directly OOB without touching a player is a throw-in violation.

Bronco, throwing the ball directly out of bounds on a throw-in is a violation. If the throwing team commits any violation <b>during</b> the throw-in, they lose the ball <b>and</b> the arrow. That's always been the rule.

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.

I was hoping you would post that. I need a good, middle-of-the-afternoon pick-up.

Hold the phone! There end lies the issue once again. If I start something, it has to end. We do not defer penality's, violations, or any results. Name somewhere else where we do this in the rules. We got into this situation with a held ball/jump ball. If we want to be fair each APTI afterwards needs to have en ending. We don't defer it to another held/jump ball. If it's kick, then we inbound again, APTI not complete.

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.

Hold the phone! You're agreeing with me! Yes, finally!

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?

Mick - have you got any cookies with any strong ingredients? I might need those before the afternoon's done.

"Around the clock? Sports all the time? That's never gonna work! Sportscenter? Think about it - that's just dumb." -- Ron Burgundy