What I hope is the last freaking AP throw-in quiz

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Maybe A1 has a prosthesis that became detached. OF course, in this instance, A1 couldn't complain about the call because s/he doesn't have a leg to stand on. (Sorry, I had to say that so Mark wouldn't)

I can see it coming now - an endless thread about lack of a pivot foot following a jump hop.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

I can see it coming now - an endless thread about lack of a pivot foot following a jump hop.

Jump hops are legal. If you pick up your pivot foot, you can now legally jump hop on the other foot from one end of the court to the other.

It's true, it's true.....

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If A1 were Pele, that would change the answer, because we need to protect the famous players.

Maybe A1 has a prosthesis that became detached. OF course, in this instance, A1 couldn't complain about the call because s/he doesn't have a leg to stand on. (Sorry, I had to say that so Mark wouldn't)

Well, no, s/he would have A leg to stand on. But not much else.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Well, no, s/he would have A leg to stand on. But not much else.

Disagree.

Ever heard of Ron Jeremy?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Disagree.

Ever heard of Ron Jeremy?

Wasn't he in that movie with Diebler? I think it was called "Who's Yours".

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

A1 to inbound on an AP throw-in. During the throw-in, the ball is simultaneously kicked by A2 and B1. Does team A retain the arrow for the subsequent throw-in?

Amazingly, this situation is not covered by the NFHS Rules Book! Check for yourself and you will see that a simultaneous kicking violation is NOT one of the items listed that necessitates an AP throw-in.

6-4-3 . . . Alternating-possession throw-ins shall be from the out-of-bounds spot nearest to where the ball was located. An alternating-possession throw-in shall result when:
a. A held ball occurs.
b. The ball goes out of bounds, as in 7-3.
c. A simultaneous free-throw violation occurs.
d. A live ball lodges between the backboard and ring or comes to rest on the flange, unless a free throw or throw-in follows.
e. The ball becomes dead when neither team is in control and no goal, infraction nor end of a quarter/extra period is involved.
f. Opponents commit simultaneous goaltending or basket-interference violations.
g. Double personal, double technical or simultaneous fouls occur and the point of interruption is such that neither team is in control and no goal, infraction, nor end of quarter/extra period is involved.

Therefore, this situation must fall under 2-3.
If I were the referee and had to make a decision I would extrapolate from 9-4, 6-4-3, 6-4-5, Penalty #4 from 9-11+12, and 6.4.5 SitA.
My ruling is that the simultaneous kicking violation results in an AP throw-in, and that Team B is entitled to make this new AP throw-in as Team A lost the arrow by committing a violation during the prior throw-in. Even though this violation was part of a simultaneous violation, Team A still committed a violation. Thus Team A loses their turn at the arrow.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Amazingly, this situation is not covered by the NFHS Rules Book! Check for yourself and you will see that a simultaneous kicking violation is NOT one of the items listed that necessitates an AP throw-in.

Where's ChuckElias when you need him? We need to get this situation added ASAP!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Where's ChuckElias when you need him? We need to get this situation added ASAP!

Yeah, where is he?

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Maybe A1 has a prosthesis that became detached.

3 bases from the time of pitch?