It's a difference of opinion
 

The illegal act happens AFTER A already collects on the AP. A still gets to take the ball out after the violation and will continue to until there is a legal throw-in or they suffer a 5 second call. Ergo, A suffers none by the violation. And they don't lose their AP as they already collected on it.

The arrow entitles them to an alternating possession throw-in, not just "possession" of the ball out of bounds for a throw-in. Since that throw-in wasn't completed, they didn't get what they're entitled to. So the next time the arrow is needed, they are still entitled to that throw-in.

Yes, I understand
 

the spirit of this rule. I just don't agree with it. It's funny, for all that agree to this now, there was nary a debate of this prior ot the rule change. Regardless, I stand by my oath to enforce the rules as written.

Having said that, are all of you ready to assess Ts whenever a home player walks on the courts in a yellow home jersey?!

If the rulebook and my state association say that it's a T, then I sure will. Teams have known about this upcoming change for several years now.

However, we have yet to see exactly how the rule will be worded when it goes into the book.

You know what is amazing about this thread so far? "He who must not be named (my apologies to J.K. Rowling)" has not added his two cents yet.

MTD, Sr.

Tell me what would happen in this scenario.

Held ball, A has AP arrow. A1 has the ball for the AP throw-in, when B1 fouls A2. Now what do we do?

I don't think that's true, really. We've discussed this quite a bit, with similar arguments on each side.

http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=22494
http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=11565

Lil' Scrappy comes through with the clutch explanation once again.

At the risk of sounding foolish...
 

Here is what makes logical sense to me but may not be kosher with the rules, especially the new one:

1. A is in the bonus: A goes to the line and retains AP as they did not have a chance (or another chance) for a throw-in;
2. A is not in bonus: A throws-in again and AP goes to B following a legal throw-in.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

In your answer #2, then what would be the penalty to team B for committing the foul? You'd have exactly the same result as if team B never committed the foul (except for another foul counting toward the bonus which would happen regardless of an AP situation).

Correct, the same as any other situation where B fouls A.

I've read through the old threads. There is credible evidence/situations discussed there that make sense of the new rule. The one in particular: A is granted ball via AP. B kicks ball on attempted throw-in.

Old rule: AP changes to B.
New Rule: AP stays with A.

On next attempted throw-in, team A fouls B before ball is legally entered. Under the old rule, B would get ball via the foul AND get next AP. Under new rule, B would get ball for foul, A would keep AP as they never had chance to complete the AP throw-in.

Thanks for helping me reason through.

My point is why should A lose the AP arrow if they get fouled by B before the throw-in is completed? The resulting throw-in is because of the foul and is not an AP throw-in, so A should retain the arrow, the same as if B kicked the inbound pass.

You are correct on #1.

You are wrong on #2, by rule and by logic. It makes no sense that you would allow A to keep the arrow if they shoot but not if they are not in the bonus.

I give up.