New "AP Legal Touch" Rule/Different Interpretation

[BayStateRef]

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, New AP arrow rule 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.

[Scrapper1]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

The IAABO ruling is in the current newsletter...

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

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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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

So......?

What does the Sportorial say?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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 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 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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Aw geeze, those IAABO guys. What a bunch....

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It's too bad that that the late but unlamented Chuck Elias isn't still around.

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

I can't see how anybody could possibly come up with a ruling like that. It literally ignores completely what the FED is saying.

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.

[BktBallRef]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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

2) 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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

The IAABO interp means absolutely nothing to me or anyone else who's not a member.

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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

IAABO BOARD (203)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

He is the president, interpreter, trainer, secretary and treasurer of "his" board.

Geeze, does he wash the dishes too?

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I guess that if he doesn't have any high schools to assign . . .

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.