+1 No need for us to be Uniform Nazi's!!

That's ok, I'm sure Don Quixote had a side-kick too. :)

When a team is awarded an AP throw-in, it only makes sense the arrow switches when the throw-in is completed.

I like windmills too, just not enough to go tilting at them... :D

Makes more sense to me to consider that everything that happens once the ball is at the disposal of the thrower is the direct result of that. Obviously, the committee currently feels the AP grants an entire throw-in, which doesn't make sense to me. Grant them the ball to initiate the throw-in and switch it. It will have done it's job, IMO.

And then we gotta explain to a coach why he just lost the arrow when the other team kicked the ball before it was legally touched on the throw-in.

Any coach with an IQ higher than a kumquat is gonna be teaching his players to try and kick the ball every time when defending an an AP throw-in.

It doesn't really make sense to me to have a team gain an advantage by committing a violation. I'm with M&M.

Since I started this mess, I'll answer your question. Your proverbial coach is a moron, just as the coach who teaches his offensive players to foul under the current rule set just so the arrow doesn't switch. Under my proposal, there's no more advantage to kicking this ball than on any other throw in? Under the current rule, the punishment is stronger for kicking the ball on an AP throw-in than on any other throw-in.

Current rule:
If a player kicks the ball on an AP throw-in, the arrow which would have switched to his team now will not.

My proposal:
If a player kicks the ball on an AP throw-in, the arrow switches as it normally would have had the player not kicked the ball.

ok here we go
 

I know I will be more un popular than popular here..but...

I like the team control on throw ins change..with exceptions noted above.

I like switching the arrow when at the disposal.

I don't mind coaches calling time outs.....

I want to get rid of the coaching box.....ok now before all the applause....I mean I want to let them roam from the baseline to mid court...ok extend the box may be better. As long as they are coaching I really don't care where they are. If they are "coaching" me in an unsporting manner I really don't care where they are the deserve a T...so in essence the box really doesn't help us that much..

I also want to get rid of the seat belt...Just because they got a T doesn't mean they need to sit the rest of the game....again if they are coaching I really don't give a rats big behind...if they aren't they deserve a T whether sitting or standing....

Ok off the soap box, putting on the bullet proof attire

fire away LOL

Are you an ex-coach? :eek:

No Box
 

[QUOTE=cmathews;668568
I want to get rid of the coaching box.....ok now before all the applause....I mean I want to let them roam from the baseline to mid court...ok extend the box may be better. As long as they are coaching I really don't care where they are. If they are "coaching" me in an unsporting manner I really don't care where they are the deserve a T...so in essence the box really doesn't help us that much..

[/QUOTE]

Interesting....?? That would be more consistent with how it is called in our area. (by observation, whether this is right or wrong is for another thread)
The box has been a POE from Nationals and state for a while, and it is still not strictly, nor uniformly enforced.

I agree with these two.

How is the punishment stronger for kicking the ball on an AP throw-in versus a non-AP throw-in? :confused: In both cases, the non-violating team gets a repeat throw-in and the arrow doesn't change. Where's the difference?

And as written, under that proposal the team that committed the kicking violation will now get the arrow. And they now can commit a foul during the ensuing non-AP throw-in and not have to worry about losing the arrow either. And you don't think that's not gaining an unfair advantage by committing a violation?

And if you get another moronic coach in the last coupla minutes of a game who doesn't have the arrow or a DOG warning, what's your suggestion if that moronic coach instructs his defender to deliberately break the plane after the thrower gets the ball and the arrow has been switched? The throwing team gets a repeat throw-in but the moronic coach's team only gets the DOG warning and also gets the arrow. Isn't that also gaining an advantage by committing an illegal act?

Some of these moronic coaches are pretty smart. :D

Your logic escapes me, Snaqs.

I don't disagree with this one. Having such a small area doesn't make sense, in that it does not, by itself, improve sportsmanship. Why not give the coach the opportunity to coach their team without having to worry about exactly where they are standing (off the floor, of course).

This one I may still disagree. I could live with the argument that a coach should not be seatbelted after an administrative T, for example. But I still feel that, especially in HS sports, sportsmanship still needs to be a very important part of the game. Therefore, the penalty for an unsporting T should still carry the addtional weight of losing the box. Now, if I was king, I might even consider them losing the box for an unsporting act by a player, not even just bench personnel. In my own little world, I might allow them to keep the box as long as the player that received the T stayed on the bench. This would put more emphasis on a coach controling their players directly. (But, boy would I need a picture of a windmill to remind me how easy it would be to get something like that passed...)

Huh? :confused: Presently the box isn't lost due to an administrative T.

The throw-in, and thus the kicked ball, would never have happened had the AP throw-in not occurred. Everything that happens during the AP throw-in happens as a result of the AP throw-in and depends on whose arrow it is. This is why they should get the "opportunity" to make the throw-in, not the necessity that the throw-in be completed.

Some would argue that kicking the ball is good defense (thus the NCAA rule change of shot clock only resetting to 15, if necessary). The throw-in team had their chance to get the next possession, and they didn't unequitably lose it, they still have the next throw-in as well.

I'll keep playing.
JR, let me state it slightly differently.

AP throwin for A. After it's over, B will get the arrow. Under the current rule, if B1 kicks the ball before the throwin is over, B will not get the arrow. How is this not an added punishment for kicking the throwin pass?


No, because the arrow change is not a result of the violation or foul; it would have happened without them. It would be stupid to commit a violation for the sole purpose of causing something to happen that would have happened anyway; and there's no added advantage.

The problem is we're thinking of this completely differently. I see the arrow's job as completed as soon as the ball is handed to the thrower. I don't understand why the coach would need to commit the DOG just to get the arrow, it's going to switch anyway. Or is there another reason for committing the DOG violation and you think he should lose the next arrow if he does it on an AP throw-in?


I see that. :)

Well, crap, you're right. That's what I get for trying to hurry up and leave the office...

As I think about it, the times a coach loses the box is due to unsporting behavior of some kind. Ok, that stays...I'm actually advocating perhaps allowing a larger box, but make the coach responsible for all unsporting behavior, even on the court.