Why?

[BktBallRef]

A violation can't occur unless the ball is live. There is no such thing as a dead ball violation.

A foul could occur with before the throw-in begins, which would be a dead ball (technical) foul. A foul could also occur after the throw-in begins, which would be a live ball (personal or technical) foul.

Rather than trying to confusingly differentiate between a live ball foul and a dead ball foul, they simply wrote the rule so that the arrow would not change if a foul occurred during the AP process (after the AP situation was created and before the end of the throw-in).

[truerookie]

So, in essence you can lose the arrow on a violation but can't lose it on a foul. Right?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by truerookie

So, in essence you can lose the arrow on a violation but can't lose it on a foul. Right?

Right. The arrow changes when the throw-in ends or when the inbounding team violates. It's right in the book (which I don't have handy, so I can't give you the cite).

Originally Posted by Junker

To me this change just hasn't been explained well in my area

It's not a change. This has been the rule for many years.

[Junker]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Right. The arrow changes when the throw-in ends or when the inbounding team violates. It's right in the book (which I don't have handy, so I can't give you the cite).



It's not a change. This has been the rule for many years.

Citation is in my OP, straight out of the casebook. I just never came across it for some reason until they made the editorial change this year.

[Junker]

Originally Posted by truerookie

So, in essence you can lose the arrow on a violation but can't lose it on a foul. Right?

Yes.

[Junker]

That makes sense. Thanks. I still think the casebook play and ruling are confusing. I'd like to see the live ball foul be the same and possibly an exception for the dead ball foul as those don't occur often.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Junker

That makes sense. Thanks. I still think the casebook play and ruling are confusing. I'd like to see the live ball foul be the same and possibly an exception for the dead ball foul as those don't occur often.

I'm not sure why you think it's confusing. Violations by A, change the arrow. Fouls by A, don't change the arrow. Never change for fouls or violations by B.

As for exceptions, the NFHS isn't in to that. Exceptions make the rules more difficult to remember and more likely to be incorrectly enforced.

Originally Posted by Junker

Citation is in my OP, straight out of the casebook. I just never came across it for some reason until they made the editorial change this year.

Your case play came out of the book but the case play is not new, nor is it a new rule that the arrow doesn't change on fouls. That's been the case for as long as I remember. The only thing that changed was the "legal" touching issue.

[Junker]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I'm not sure why you think it's confusing. Violations by A, change the arrow. Fouls by A, don't change the arrow. Never change for fouls or violations by B.

As for exceptions, the NFHS isn't in to that. Exceptions make the rules more difficult to remember and more likely to be incorrectly enforced.




Your case play came out of the book but the case play is not new, nor is it a new rule that the arrow doesn't change on fouls. That's been the case for as long as I remember. The only thing that changed was the "legal" touching issue.

Early this season I think I was discussing the foul situation with an assignor and then we had the violation discussion around the holiday break. Now we had a fould situation again and I think I'm just making it tougher than it should be. Thanks.

[BktBallRef]

Just remember, it doesn't change unless it the throw-in ends or A violates. Throw the rest out the window.