True Dat - more fuel for the Fire! :p

I now see
 

this issue had made its way through a thread previously. Sorry for missing it. Not that it matters (we just apply the rules, don't make 'em), but do most of you agree with the spirit of this rule?

Most do. I (and maybe a couple others here) don't.

The spirit of the rule is that you're not giving a do-over, you're penalizing a violation. It's not a double penalty, as OS complains. We don't give a do-over if B team fouls before the AP throw-in is complete. The arrow stays to A, and the penalty for the foul is given separately. The arrow stays toward A, not as a penalty to B, but because A never got their throw-in in the first place. Taking away their throw-in wouldn't be fair to them.

You're just begging me to jump in here, Juulie.

This thread is getting so big you could fly the space shuttle through it.
:)

What?!? People joking on this forum?!?

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell 'ya.

Of course.

You don't believe that B should be penalized for kicking the ball?

I believe
 

They are being "penalized" for the ball reverting back to A for another throw-in (advantage to A in this scenario: they get to see the defensive set and get to adjust their throw in accordingly), as in the old rule. A then, on the throw-in following the violation, have their chance to make hay on their AP. Under the new rule, they get their throw-in opportunity AND keep AP. Ergo, I think this penalizes black too much, but that is just my opinion.

Then don't think of it as being penalized. The purpose of the arrow isn't used for penalties. The AP arrow just serves to avoid using the ole jump ball.

But if you still want to think of it in that light, isn't A penalized the old way? They have an AP throw in that was lost because of a violation on B (kick).

The penalty for deliberately kicking a ball is a throw-in to the other team. If you give the non-offending team an AP throw-in instead, you haven't penalized the team for the kick at all because the throw-in part of the kicking penalty has never been administered.

It's that simple.

In reality
 

it isn't lost. They still possess the ball and will throw-in just as if the violation never happened. They never lost their AP throw-in, it "carried over" to the play following the kick.

Yes, I understand the theory behind the new rule. Regardless of old or new rule, A still has a throw-in. A still has the possession it ultimately received from the AP. They already benefited from the AP via the possession, regardless of what happens on the ensuing play. If there is a violation on the throw-in, they still keep possession of the ball and the right to the throw-in that was granted them via the AP. I just don't see how the new rule improves the game. Regardless, I will enforce it as written.

No, they haven't because B committed an illegal act during the AP throw-in. :(