Rule change thread - for real, this time

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

How is the punishment stronger for kicking the ball on an AP throw-in versus a non-AP throw-in? 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.

Your logic escapes me, Snaqs.

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

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.

[Adam]

I'll keep playing.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

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?

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Your logic escapes me, Snaqs.

I see that.