New Rule

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

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.

Exactly. I thought that was pretty easy.

[SmokeEater]

Originally Posted by lmeadski

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.

If A has the ball for a throw in and a member from A fouls or violates, then A loses the AP right. Only time they will retain AP is when the defending team fouls or intentionally kicks the ball prior to the ball being legally touched. This is what we have been saying in the last 4 pages.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

If A has the ball for a throw in and a member from A fouls or violates, then A loses the AP right.

No, sorry. A foul by either team during the throw-in does NOT cause the AP arrow to switch. The AP arrow is switched when the AP throw-in is completed. An AP throw-in is completed when the throw-in ends or when the inbounding team violates. NFHS 6-4-4.

[SmokeEater]

Thx Scrapper I misread. NCAA rules is the same only split into separate art's.

I appreciate the correction.

[Nevadaref]

There is one other aspect of this rule to consider--time. I am still waiting to see if the timing rules will be changed to make it that the game clock will not start on an illegal touching, but only when the ball is "legally" touched inbounds.

This could certainly come into play late in the game. For example, let's say that there is only 1.5 seconds remaining in the game with Team B leading by 1. Team A has a throw-in, whether the throw-in is an AP throw-in or not makes no difference. It would actually be productive for Team B to kick the ball on the throw-in pass, if that is the only way that they can make a defensive play as under last season's rules the clock should start per 5-9-4 and then stop upon the sounding of the whistle from the official for the violation.

Sadly Team B would benefit from an illegal action is such a situation. I hope that the NFHS will also add the word "legally" to 5-9-3&4 as it already appears in 5-9-2.

(BTW under NCAA rules the clock starts upon a "legal" touching.)

[eyezen]

Good point NV...

Also I do believe that hitting the ball with your fist is also illegal and is much easier to do under normal circumstances than kicking the ball. In all the different threads on the new AP rule I haven't seen this brought up as most of the emphasis is on kicking the ball. Something to think about. Correct me if I'm wrong and this wouldn't invoke the new rule....

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by eyezen

Good point NV...

Also I do believe that hitting the ball with your fist is also illegal and is much easier to do under normal circumstances than kicking the ball. In all the different threads on the new AP rule I haven't seen this brought up as most of the emphasis is on kicking the ball. Something to think about. Correct me if I'm wrong and this wouldn't invoke the new rule....

That's because making that call is much like calling a multiple foul.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by eyezen

Good point NV...

Also I do believe that hitting the ball with your fist is also illegal and is much easier to do under normal circumstances than kicking the ball. In all the different threads on the new AP rule I haven't seen this brought up as most of the emphasis is on kicking the ball. Something to think about. Correct me if I'm wrong and this wouldn't invoke the new rule....

You are correct and the new rule would indeed apply, but as Tony points out it is very rare for someone to punch the ball during a game.

[eyezen]

It may be or rather is rare...and I don't mean to thread hijack but let me ask you this. In your end of game timing scenario if you were determined to use this "loophole" to your advantage which do you think you could pull off easier given thought to it previously? kicking the ball or hitting it with your fist? Which could you do more subtlety?

[lmeadski]

Originally Posted by eyezen

It may be or rather is rare...and I don't mean to thread hijack but let me ask you this. In your end of game timing scenario if you were determined to use this "loophole" to your advantage which do you think you could pull off easier given thought to it previously? kicking the ball or hitting it with your fist? Which could you do more subtlety?

It isn't one of these that could "strategically" be used the best. Our local refs are talking about the throw-in by the offense on an AP, telling the inbounder to throwin at or near the defenders feet (most naturally if you are approaching a 5 count). Natural reaction would be to kick at it. Result of play (if defender kicks): keep your throw in and the AP.

[Hartsy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There is one other aspect of this rule to consider--time. I am still waiting to see if the timing rules will be changed to make it that the game clock will not start on an illegal touching, but only when the ball is "legally" touched inbounds.

This could certainly come into play late in the game. For example, let's say that there is only 1.5 seconds remaining in the game with Team B leading by 1. Team A has a throw-in, whether the throw-in is an AP throw-in or not makes no difference. It would actually be productive for Team B to kick the ball on the throw-in pass, if that is the only way that they can make a defensive play as under last season's rules the clock should start per 5-9-4 and then stop upon the sounding of the whistle from the official for the violation.

Sadly Team B would benefit from an illegal action is such a situation. I hope that the NFHS will also add the word "legally" to 5-9-3&4 as it already appears in 5-9-2.

(BTW under NCAA rules the clock starts upon a "legal" touching.)

Hmmm. I don't have my rules handy, but my instinct is to say that the clock would not start. Doesn't it start on an in-bounds pass when legally touched? On a kick or punch, as someone mentioned before, there is no legal touching.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Hartsy

Hmmm. I don't have my rules handy, but my instinct is to say that the clock would not start. Doesn't it start on an in-bounds pass when legally touched? On a kick or punch, as someone mentioned before, there is no legal touching.

No. That's what he's saying. The rule states the clock starts when the ball is touched, not "legally touched."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

No. That's what he's saying. The rule states the clock starts when the ball is touched, not "legally touched."

But you have a dead ball immediately, literally at the same moment of the touching. I don't think it's too much of a stretch with the current rules to say the clock should not start.

edited: I just joined the 4040 club. Me and Barry Bonds.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I don't think it's too much of a stretch with the current rules to say the clock should not start.

Unfortunately, it is a stretch because the current rules language does not support that stance. The rules say...start the clock when it is touched by or touches a player on the court....then stop the clock on the official's signal(whistle).

The problem is(and will remain) how does the timer tell if the touching on the throw-in is legal or not? Until the official actually blows the whistle and calls the violation, the timer has to assume that it is a legal touch. If the timer does wait to make sure that the touching is legal, won't the clock really then be starting late?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Unfortunately, it is a stretch because the current rules language does not support that stance. The rules say...start the clock when it is touched by or touches a player on the court....then stop the clock on the official's signal(whistle).

Now, maybe I'm joining Adam in a windmill-chasing excursion, but I'm leaning towards agreeing that the illegal touch caused the ball to become dead immediately, therefore the clock should not have started. If I remember right, one of the rules fundamentals is "The official's whistle doesn't cause the ball to become dead; it is already dead." Therefore, using that logic, if I know the ball is dead, and I'm a little slow in blowing the whistle to stop the clock, I have definite knowledge where the clock should be in this instance, and will put whatever time ran off back on. With the new AP rule, we now know the throw-in has not been completed. If the throw-in isn't completed, we have definite knowledge that no time should have come off the clock. Therefore, we can adjust the clock using that definite knowledge, correct?

An extreme example, perhaps, but what if, with 3 sec. left in a quarter/half/game, a ball goes OOB, but I end up having a coughing spell and can't blow the whistle, and the horn goes off. Are you saying, since there was no whistle, the quarter/half/game is over, even though we all know the ball went OOB with 3 sec. left?