Originally Posted by reffish (Post 697728)

:cool:Right, I agree that the throw-in was contacted <font color = red>il</font>legally, therefore the subsequent throw-in is for the kick and not for the AP throw-in. And I agree my last post was a steaming pile of :(

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 697727)

If only there were a tax on this crap you insist on adding to every thread.

We could call it the get a ****in' life or take it somewhere else tax.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 697727)

If only there were a tax on this crap you insist on adding to every thread.

We could call it the get a ****in' life or take it somewhere else tax.

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 697733)

bob jenkins: It says "Moderator" under your screen name. Go ahead and delete any of my posts that are an attempt, successful, or not (which is typical for me), at humor.

If you want, like some other Forum members, I can be overly sarcastic, call other Forum members who I disagree with names, be impatient, use profanity, etc. If you think about my history on the Forum, I believe that I have been, in almost all cases, a pillar of civility. Occasionally, yes, maybe rarely, I may add something of value, either a comment, question, suggestion, opinion, or citation, to a thread. And yes, I know that I probably post too many off topic images, or unsuccessful attempts at humor. But, for me participating on this Forum is a lot better than watching some of the crap that's on television. I'm an empty nester. I work, sleep, communicate with my adult children, enjoy working in the yard and garden, go to church, and officiate basketball. You're right, it's not much of a life, but it's my life, and I'm doing the best I can with it. In any case, in a few weeks I'll be out training new officials several nights a week and then I'll be officiating games several night each week, and won't have as much time to post on the Forum.

Originally Posted by eg-italy (Post 697714)

Probably it's also useful to know what's the reason for the rule. It's difficult to steal the ball on a throw-in, but kicking the ball is easier. Team B would then be favored by the next AP throw-in just by committing a violation; in some end-of-game situations this might be an advantage.

Ciao

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 697791)

How have they benefited? What have they gained that wouldn't have occurred already?

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 697801)

An AP possession obviously......

The team that kicked the ball is penalized for that act by giving up a throw-in for their kicking violation. The other team would also penalized at the same time for that same kicking violation by giving up the arrow for the next AP throw-in.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 697828)

I disagree. The kicking team, if the arrow were to switch, gains nothing by kicking the ball. The arrow would have switched anyway.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 697737)

Fixed it for ya. The kicked throw-in was contacted illegally. That was my point, and the point of the case play cited also.

And also note the "smiley" that was inserted at the end of the "steaming doo-doo" statement. In no way was that statement meant to be demeaning or derisory towards yourself.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 697833)

The defensive team that violated isn't gaining anything? Um, didn't they just gain an AP for committing a violation?

Whyinhell in this situation is the throwing team LOSING the arrow then? Are you really recommending that the throwing team be punished in this situation? They get a deserved throw-in because of the kicking violation but also lose their deserved AP posession.

And you should be be aware also that you are disagreeing completely with the people who made this rule, not me.
From the:
COMMENTS ON THE 2007-08 RULES REVISIONS:
WHEN A THROW-IN ENDS CLARIFIED(4-42-5): The word "legally" was added to the definition of when a throw-in ends. It now states "The throw-in ends when the passed ball touches, or is legally touched by, another player who is inbounds or out of bounds." <font color = red>The previous rule could possible reward a defensive team for committing a violation, especially during an alternating-possession throw-in.</font>

You may want to re-think your above stance. I don't know what could be more definitive than a direct cite from the rule book at the time when the rule was implemented.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 697828)

I disagree. The kicking team, if the arrow were to switch, gains nothing by kicking the ball. The arrow would have switched anyway.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 697843)

They prevented a possible scoring play by kicking the ball that they would not have otherwise been able to do.

If you don't leave the arrow with the throwing team, there is no penalty for kicking. They get to force the throwing team to throw again with another chance to intercept the throwin.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 697849)

They get the same penalty they would get under any other scenario in which they kicked the ball.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 697840)

My answer to your first question is, no, they don't get an AP for committing a violation. They would have got the AP anyway, so it's not a reward for the violation.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 697849)

They get the same penalty they would get under any other scenario in which they kicked the ball.