Saw this play last night. I was in the stands and one of my associates was working the table of the local H.S. team. On the jump, the opposing team has a 6'10 guy jumping against the home team center/forward a 6'3 guy. Big guy gets the tap and it goes directly OOB without any other player touching the ball. The official gives the ball to the home team for throw-in. The arrow is set towards the home team. At the start of the second period the official asks if there had been an alternate possession during the first quarter. There hadn't been. He said the arrow should have been pointed to the visitors basket after the jump. The table asked how that could be possible when the visitors had clearly gotten the tap and the official determined that by giving the ball to the home team for throw in. Now this guy is a "veteran" official, very old school. Here is his reasoning to the table for having the arrow go to the visitors. If we put the arrow towards the home team it would be quote "double indemnity". I have been searching my rule book all night for the double indemnity clause on the alternating possession rule but so far have failed to come up with it. Maybe it was in the book back in 1970. Can some of you more "veteran" guy help me out on this? I wish these guys would stay on top of the rules as most of the older guys do.

Keep 'em "straight-up"

BigJoe if I am reading this right the official nailed this one. I don't know about the explanation, however, never heard of the double indemnity clause. The ball was tapped O.B. by visitors, home team got the ball for a throw in. This is where control was established for purposes of the A.P., therefore, arrow set to visitors. The only time you can get the ball and the arrow for the start of the game is when the tossed ball is caught by a jumper, this is deemed control, hence arrow set for opposing team and it is a violation, hence ball to opposing team. This is NF rules.

He certainly strrrritched the meaning of indemnity for this situation.

BigJoe, it doesn't matter who tips the ball. The first team to control the ball after the tip, in this case, is the home team. The arrow should have been pointed for the visitors. The official was correct. Again, it makes no difference whatsoever who tipped the ball and who didn't.

I don't think BigJoe is questioning which way the arrow should have been pointing. I think he was just talking about the " double indemnity".

Thank you for your prompt response guys. In doing further research in the rule book, I think the following rules support the official last night:4-12-5,4-12-6, & 7-2-1. Had the official quoted these rules instead of using the dreaded "double indemnity" clause, there would have been no question.

Isn't double indemnity....
 

Isn't double indemnity.... when you tell your daughter she is the most precious woman in your life (While your wife overhears your statement.) :D

I'm going to take a guess here. Since the official does not have to explain this to the table, i bet the Vet. Official knew exactly what he was saying and said this on purpose. He could have just said " by rule". Sometimes an answer to a question should match the simplicity of the question. This is definitely a wily old Veteran. :)

Re: Isn't double indemnity....
 

Hmmmm, I'm certainly not Mr. Webster. I think in your example it woould be more like your daughter saying i am the most important person in your life, and then your wife would say i am also the most important person in your life. thus I am the recipient of double indemnity. To me double indemnity is a positive. Home team gets the ball twice for one violation on the visiting team. Please help me if i am way off. Lets here from some of these Webster types.

Re: Isn't double indemnity....
 

No - that's double jeopardy!