New Rule

[lmeadski]

What is the new rule for AP? The example they used at our refs meeting was a bit confusing. They used this example: White is taking the ball out and has possession. On the throw-in, black kicks the ball (violation). At this point, under the old rule, AP would have converted to black. Under the new rule, white retains AP. Do I have this right? If it is true, isn't it a moot point? On the ensuing throw-in, AP would then change anyway (under the old rule, it would have already changed). I must be missing something (wont be the first time).

[Scrapper1]

New "AP Legal Touch" Rule/Different Interpretation

The arrow will NOT change after the second throw-in, because it's no longer an AP throw-in. The throw-in is due to a kicking violation, and the arrow doesn't change after a kicking violation.

So in your situation, White gets a new throw-in and then keeps the arrow after the throw-in is completed.

[lmeadski]

Why would they retain possession? The second throw-in was successful. If they had been successful on the first throw-in (if black hadn't kicked it), possession would have changed. Why doesn't change on the success of the second throw-in? Is black being "penalized" for the kicking violation? THe AP should go back to black after white's throw in is legally touched. It seems that the result of this new rule is the same outcome as the old rule. Is there an example where this essentially changes the old rule? Or, is this just a non-clarifying clarification?

[Mountaineer]

IMO, black violated before that AP was completed - therefore the second throw had nothing to do with the AP but was a throw-in for a violation.

[Nevadaref]

You have to understand that the SECOND throw-in is NOT an AP throw-in. It is simply a throw-in awarded to a team because the opponent committed a violation (in this case a kicking violation).


Now once you accept that fact, you will agree that there is no reason to switch the arrow after the second throw-in. The AP arrow has nothing to do with this throw-in.

If someone kicked the ball during play and you blew the whistle and administered a throw-in, would you want to switch the arrow at the end of that throw-in? Of course not. The principle is the same here.

[lmeadski]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You have to understand that the SECOND throw-in is NOT an AP throw-in. It is simply a throw-in awarded to a team because the opponent committed a violation (in this case a kicking violation).


Now once you accept that fact, you will agree that there is no reason to switch the arrow after the second throw-in. The AP arrow has nothing to do with this throw-in.

If someone kicked the ball during play and you blew the whistle and administered a throw-in, would you want to switch the arrow at the end of that throw-in? Of course not. The principle is the same here.

Ergo, black is penalized for the violation. Had they NOT kicked the initial throw in, AP would have changed. Correct?

[psujaye]

Originally Posted by lmeadski

Why would they retain possession? The second throw-in was successful. If they had been successful on the first throw-in (if black hadn't kicked it), possession would have changed. Why doesn't change on the success of the second throw-in? Is black being "penalized" for the kicking violation? THe AP should go back to black after white's throw in is legally touched. It seems that the result of this new rule is the same outcome as the old rule. Is there an example where this essentially changes the old rule? Or, is this just a non-clarifying clarification?

I don't have the rule book to cite the exact rule, but i believe the AP arrow changes when the ball is legally touched on the court (i.e. when the throw in ends). If black kicks the ball, it is a violation (i.e. not legal touching) so the AP arrow would not change after the first or 2nd throw in for white.