Why?

[Junker]

All right those of you who serve on various rules committees, my crew is looking at the following casebook play because we had the comment come up in a game Friday night. My question is why they would make this situation different for a foul as opposed to a violation. I understand with the new editorial change that a throw in doesn't end until the ball is legally touched or if A commits a violation, but why are they possibly not penalized (ie. losing the arrow) A fouls? To me this change just hasn't been explained well in my area and leads to some goofy situations that could easily be screwed up. BTW, we did get it right.



6.4.5 SITUATION A: Team A is awarded the ball for a throw-in under the alternating procedure. A1 commits a

violation. RULING: B’s ball for a throw-in because of the violation. In addition, the possession arrow is reversed and is

pointed towards B’s basket. Team B will have the next throw-in opportunity under the alternating procedure. Team A has

lost its opportunity by virtue of the violation. A violation by Team A during an alternating-possession throw-ins is the only

way a team loses its turn under the procedure. COMMENT: If a foul by either team occurs before an alternating possession

throw-in ends, the foul is penalized as required and play continues as it normally would, but the possession

arrow is not reversed. The same team will still have the arrow for the next alternating-possession throw-in. The arrow is

reversed when an alternating-possession throw-in ends. (6-4-4)

[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?

[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.

[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 truerookie

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

Yes.

[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.

[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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Junker

My question is why they would make this situation different for a foul as opposed to a violation. I understand with the new editorial change that a throw in doesn't end until the ball is legally touched or if A commits a violation, but why are they possibly not penalized (ie. losing the arrow) A fouls?

I'm not sure if this part of your question has been answered, but if I'm reading this right, are you asking why the arrow would switch on a throw-in team violation, but it wouldn't switch on (what some would say is worse) a foul?

The way I've had it explained to me is a foul (usually) carries a somewhat harsher penalty - sometimes giving up points as well as the possession. Losing the arrow, even though the throw-in has not been completed, would be yet an additional penalty for that foul. Simple play - B is in the bonus, and A sets an illegal screen during the AP throw-in. Since there is no team control, A loses the possesion, and B shoots the one-and-one. Perhaps the committee feels that taking away the arrow as well would be too harsh a penalty to add to that common foul.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I'm not sure if this part of your question has been answered, but if I'm reading this right, are you asking why the arrow would switch on a throw-in team violation, but it wouldn't switch on (what some would say is worse) a foul?

The way I've had it explained to me is a foul (usually) carries a somewhat harsher penalty - sometimes giving up points as well as the possession. Losing the arrow, even though the throw-in has not been completed, would be yet an additional penalty for that foul. Simple play - B is in the bonus, and A sets an illegal screen during the AP throw-in. Since there is no team control, A loses the possesion, and B shoots the one-and-one. Perhaps the committee feels that taking away the arrow as well would be too harsh a penalty to add to that common foul.

Another point...

About the only way for the offense to violate on the throwin is to commit a throwin violation. A foul is more orthogonal to the throwin itself. It can happen during a throwin but is just as likely to occur any other time. When a team messes up the throwin, they lose the throwin and the right to the throwin. They foul, it has its own penalty.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A foul is more orthogonal to the throwin itself.

Right! The orthogonality of the foul. Why didn't I think of that?