New Rule
 

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).

http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=36145

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.

Explain further
 

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

<font size = 2>Correct.</font size>

oh no! here we go again.

So are you all saying that a kicked ball on an AP throw-in for Team A results in a normal throw-in with Team A retaining the arrow for the next jump ball situation?? :D

Yes, that's what they're saying.

Are you trying to pull me out of retirement?

And if the ball is tipped and then kicked almost simultaneously then the arrow will change...... :D as long as the tip happens first.

I'll make this as simple as I can.

Held ball.

Team A has the AP arrow.

Thrower A1 throws the ball.

The ball is illegally kicked by B1.

Since the violation occurred before the throw-in ended.

Therefore, the arrow does not change.

The AP situation is now OVER.

The next throw-in is for A because B1 committed a kicking violation.

NOTE to BktBallRef:

:D = a joke
I believe SmokeEater was kidding as well...

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. :(

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.

Exactly. I thought that was pretty easy.

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.

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.

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

I appreciate the correction.

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.)

Fist
 

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. :eek:

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.

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.

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."

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. :)

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?

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?

The timer should be watching the official for the "chop", not watching to see when the ball is touched. Are we supposed to start the clock on the kick, whistle it dead, and give the stop clock signal all at the same time?

Surely this has been dealt with in a case play somewhere.

P.S. - This should go to a new thread.

Try remembering rule 5-9-4 instead. :) You're treating it as if it doesn't exist.

It's dealt with under NFHS rule 5-9-4 very explicitly. You start the clock on the "touch". If you then deem that "touch" a violation, you stop the clock. That's rule 5-8-1(c).

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with any concept. You work with what you have. What we currently have is those two rules along with the explicit language contained in those rules.

Again, if you do change the rule so that it reads a "legal" touch, how does the timer now know whether that touch is legal or not, and when to start the clock? Whether the touch was "legal" or not can only be decided by the official, not the timer. If the timer waits to see that the official did <b>NOT</b> blow the whistle for a kicking violation, then the timer is going to be late starting the clock.

I'm not treating it as if it doesn't exist, I'm not sure it applies over and above the other issues I mentioned.

We now know the kicking violation means the throw-in is not completed. This settles the past arguments over whether the "touch" happens before the violation. We now know the violation happens first, and the ball is dead before the throw-in is completed. This gives me definite information that the clock should not have started, and allows me to apply 5-10-1. The timer may not know whether the touch is legal or not, and properly started it, but I can use my definite knowledge to correct it and put the time back on.

OK. If I agree that starting the clock on ANY touch is the rule, and the rule is apparently stated that way, then we start the clock on the touch/kick with a "chop" signal, then blow the whistle and raise an open hand to stop the clock. I'd rather the rule be written to just keep the open hand raised and blow the whistle on the kick, thus no time elapsed.

And I'll say again, the timer should be watching the officials signal and not the ball for when to start the clock. I will even remind them of this in cases like this one. Ever see a clock start early because the timer thought the ball was tipped on throw in? or on down court throw in with the ball tipped at the line, but the clock didn't start until the home team caught the pass and hit an apparent game winner?

Here's the deal. The people you are debating this rule with, believes there is nothing wrong with this new rule, everything is okay. Simple. Now you know why the rulesets are so different between college, hs and pros. There are too many one track minded people in this industry and they don't think out the right side of their brain. There's also something in the water. This is by far one of the dumbest rules federation as come out with. Everyone on this committe needs to be fired for this one. They should all resign immediately because it's clear they are not helping and i don't think they understand the game which is another clear indication they shouldn't be there.

One more thing, you know how we get in trouble when we make bad calls in a game. Well, the committee members should take a hit for this one. We don't want this group of people making no more changes to the NFHS rule sets. No more. A slight modification was all that was needed, instead they went stupid, which kind of tells you a lot about the officials that support this new rule.

WTF?!?!?

(Used with permission.)

Logical and reasonable discussion just ended on this thread. That's "WTF"!

I'm closing my eyes, clicking my heels, and saying to myself, "There's no place like home...", and maybe things will get back to normal?

So, anyway, do you think making the timing correction is reasonable? I understand your point about the timer needs to do what they need to do, but wouldn't we have the ability now to correct it?

I don't think so. JR convinced me. I'm not correcting this either way. The only time you can put back on is what came off after your whistle blew.

Actually, this post tells us far more about you than it does about any other official.

Content of character, indeed.

The concept might be reasonable but we'd need a rule change or case play to do something like that. Right now, we can only make time timing corrections when the timer makes a mistake. In this particular situation, the timer did <b>not</b> make a mistake; he followed the rules.

But the ball isn't dead when the whistle blows, the ball is already dead on the violation. (I looked it up over lunch - Basketball Rule Fundamental #16.) I'm just saying it doesn't matter when the whistle blows, or when the clock starts and stops, there is no amount of time that should legally run off the clock in this situation. The clock should be stopped when it's in the hands of the player throwing it in, it should still be stopped when it's released, it should be stopped while the ball is flying through the air, (following me so far?), and since the kicking violation now happens before the throw-in ends, the clock should have never started. So maybe the timer started it because they weren't sure it was a legal or illegal touch (they're doing their job), but we get to stop and correct the time taken off because we have definite knowledge the clock shouldn't have started in the first place.

So, are you saying in my previous example, where the ball goes OOB with 3 sec. left, and because I'm sneezing and coughing and can't get the whistle blown, my partners and I can't correct that? Even though we saw the ball hit OOB with 3 sec. left, time runs out only because i couldn't get the whistle blown?

See there's the problem; if you're going to allow a timer to do that to the rules, anarchy reigns.

Anyway, didn't the timer make a mistake by starting the clock <B>after</B> a violation occured? They might not have been sure it was a violation, which is why they did their job by starting it. But we can tell them it was a violation, and correct the timing error.

My hand was up (i.e., the stop-the-clock signal), so we're resetting the clock to 3 seconds. :D

The NBA addresses this, which is why i like reading all the codes. The clock must run for at least .003 tenths (not sure of exact #) of a second when starting and stopping. And before you go there, you can't call a violation on a dead ball.

Oh, that's why you had it up - I thought you were just asking to go to the bathroom. :D

Um, no. The timer followed the direction of NFHS rule 5-9-4.

Humor me OS... Is the ball live or dead during the the throw-in (FED)?

Yes, I understand the wording, and the fact that it doesn't include the distinction between legal and illegal touching. Are you also saying we cannot change the time back at all, even with definite knowledge that the clock should not have started?

Going back to my earlier example, the timer cannot stop the clock without a signal from the official, per 5-8-1(c). So, if, for whatever reason, I never get my whistle blown on the OOB, and the timer doesn't stop the clock, we can't go back and reset the clock to 3 seconds, even though we all know it touched OOB at 3 sec.? By rule, it would not be a timer's mistake. Also, let's say the timer does stop the clock, even though the whistle did not blow. Are you saying that would be a timer's mistake, and that we would be forced to take the remaining time off anyway?

1) The problem still is with the NFHS rules language imo. You can't correct timing unless there actually was a timing <b>mistake</b> made. And according to the current FED language, there wasn't a timing mistake made.

2) You're right, it isn't a timer's mistake. However, it is a situation that is still covered under the language of NFHS rule 5-10-2--i.e. the clock wasn't stopped properly and you had specific knowledge about it....so you can correct it. Note though that you can't use this rule to back up your argument also because on the throw-in being discussed, the clock <b>did</b> start properly.

Of course, the alternative is always just to Old School it. <i>"Taurus excreta cerebrum vincit."</i>

That's right, why spend so much effort on something so small. We can always, if you have definite knowledge set the clock to whatever. That rule has been around since the beginning of time.

Just Old School it.....

Humor you, okay, look it up yourself!:D

This is too funny, but really? .003 tenths? Now, I'm no math genius, but I'm pretty sure there isn't a clock anywhere in the world not buried in a mountain somewhere that reads time to the .003 tenths of one second.

.0003 second is an awfully precise measurement of time for a basketball game.

Tsk tsk.You just don't have the interlect-ual capacity to understand Old School's reasoning.

Nor do I want it.

But what's the intent of 5-9-4? I would've thought it was to allow the timer to start the clock during the relatively mundane throw-ins that happen all the time, where the official just neglects to chop time in. Otherwise, the timer uses 5-9-1, where the clock is started when the official signals time in. In our kicked ball play, if the official never signaled time in, and the clock starts anyway, then wouldn't this be a timer's mistake, per 5-9-1?

Why can't I use it? If the clock should be stopped the instant of the kick, which happens at the same instant of the touching (and starting of the clock), and we have definite knowledge of that fact, then why can't we make that correction? That's been my point; perhaps the timer started the clock on the touch, not knowing whether it's a legal touch, but I'm coming in and saying I have definite knowledge it wasn't stopped properly (the instant it was touched).

Are you saying you think some models of Fords are pieces of crap? :confused:

<i>"vescere bracis meis"!</i>

Got that from the Simpsons Movie....or suthin' like that.......:D

1) Yup, I'm saying that the current NFHS rules language in R5-9-1&4 explicitly directs the timer to start the clock on the ball touching or being touched by a player on the court. There is no differentiation made, rules-wise, between legal and illegal touching.

2) You can't correct it because there was <b>NO</b> timing mistake made, as per 5-10-1. Because of that, you can't use 5-10-2 because the clock <b>WAS</b> started properly under 5-10-1.

Damn keyboard, you know, one of these days, when I get enough money from all the D1 games I wish I could work. I gonna buy me one of those there intelligent keyboards. You know, the kinds that automatically corrects typing mistakes on the fly..

Yeah, get one of them Old School <i>interlectual</i> keyboards.......

Why not just take out a home equity loan and get the one that automatically won't type anything that goes against the rules, that evaluates your logic, and that corrects your grammar and syntax, too? It's only a few hundred thousand more! And you'd avoid all the insults and hassles we give you!

That's a lot more games, might even have to start another DI Men's league at a different time of season to finesse that one.

Most banks won't give you a loan against a 1981 Buick. :eek:

If there are 3.0 seconds left in this scenario I think you either reset the clock to 3.0 or (gulp) 2.7.

I'm resetting it to 3.0 because I never chopped time to begin the clock. Therefore, there is a timing error in my opinion.

I apologize that I understand the logic that 3 tenths has to run off the clock. I just don't think that is the right in this situation.

The three tenths rule is ONLY a rule in the NBA. There is no such rule for NFHS games.

At the moment, the proper timing for a play in which a defender kicks an inbounds pass if for the timer to start the clock on the chop by the official (or on the touch if the official fails to chop per 5-9-1) and then quickly stop the clock upon hearing the whistle for the kicking violation.

So how much time should come off for this situation in an NFHS game? However long it takes the timer to turn the clock on and then off when responding to the officials whistle. Under the current NFHS rules that amount is NOT zero seconds.

This is why my first post on this stated that I hope that the NFHS amends its rule to match the NCAA and then the correct answer will be zero seconds.

I think you should buy one of "those there" intelligent keyboards. Maybe the keyboard will then automatically correct you everytime you mis-state a rule. Of course, that will be a full time job for the keyboard.

I seem to recall some NCAA rule / AR that deals with this as well -- there's no minimum, but the official is supposed to be sure the clock started and then stopped.

Right, I still agree with your wording on 5-9-4. But 5-9-1 does not make that statement; it says specifically to start the clock on the official's signal. Also, it says specifically, "If the official neglects to signal, the timer is authorized to start the clock as per rule, unless an official specifically signals continued time-out". So, if I'm standing there waiting to chop in the clock, see the kick, blow my whistle, and never chop in time, why wouldn't that be a timer's mistake for starting the clock without receiving the official's signal? I didn't neglect to signal; I purposely didn't signal, because time shouldn't have started.

So, what is the intent and purpose of 5-9-4? My feeling it is to allow the timer to start the clock when the official neglects to properly start it (see 5-9-1), usually on the routine throw-ins. Granted, I don't have any inside information as to what's inside the committee's heads, :eek: but to me that makes the most sense for having that wording in there. The final authority on whether the clock should start or stop is still in the hands of the officials, correct?

Well, see above. I now have two possible timer's mistakes - first, if you do argue the clock was properly started, I argue the clock wasn't properly <B>stopped</B>. This is because we now know the kick now happens before the throw-in ends, so if the timer started it properly per your argument using 5-9-4, I argue it wasn't stopped immediately, with no time coming off, and can correct the time per 5-10-1. The second mistake is the fact the timer started the clock without the official signal. The official didn't neglect to start the clock, but did "specifically signal continued time-out".

Now, I suppose there's the chance that the official did see the touch, start to chop in time, realize it was a kick and bring their hand back up immediately while blowing the whistle. That would eliminate one of my arguments. But I still maintain the clock wasn't stopped immediately, because I have definite knowledge the throw-in was not completed, and can correct the time based on that specific knowledge.