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

[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?

[Splute]

Wow that would be interesting to see. I would have a double violation (if there is such a thing) which again would be AP throw in (in my mindk ie: held ball). The first AP didnt complete, therefore, A1 to inbound on same AP throw-in. Thats my final answer.

[Splute]

aaahhh, I just caught up on your series of AP questions... very good.

[bob jenkins]

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?

Oh yeah?

How about this:

On an AP throw-in, A1 throws the ball over the basket.

While the ball is in the cylinder, A1 and B1 simultaneously commit BI.

Or, B1 commits BI.

Or, B1 commits BI at the same time as A1 kicks the ball.

Ruling..?

[Splute]

Oh my, so this is what off season drives you to.... Mark did you find those meds?

[FrankHtown]

On a double violation you go to the AP arrow, which by now is spinning like a weather vane in a tornado

[dkmz17]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Or, B1 commits BI at the same time as A1 kicks the ball.

A1 kicks the ball at the same time that B1 commits Basket interference!?!

Is A1 Pele?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by dkmz17

A1 kicks the ball at the same time that B1 commits Basket interference!?!

Is A1 Pele?

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)

[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 Dexter]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Maybe A1 has a prosthesis that became detached.

3 bases from the time of pitch?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Or, B1 commits BI at the same time as A1 kicks the ball.

I've got a false double violation with agravating circumstances, making it a second degree violation.
B1 commits BI, violation.
A1 kicks the ball at the same time, meaning she is also goal tending. Normally, with the double violation, we'd go POI with just some simple fines for both. However, with the agravating circumstances, this becomes a second degree violation on A1 while only a third degree violation on B1.

I'm giving the ball to A1.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I've got a false double violation with agravating circumstances, making it a second degree violation.
B1 commits BI, violation.
A1 kicks the ball at the same time, meaning she is also goal tending. Normally, with the double violation, we'd go POI with just some simple fines for both. However, with the agravating circumstances, this becomes a second degree violation on A1 while only a third degree violation on B1.

I'm giving the ball to A1.

Isn't the correct call a simultaneous illegal chop block and balk? In that case, you give the ball to the player whose number is a perfect square but not divisible by pi.

Meds, meds, my kingdom for some meds.