AP/Throw-in/Violation

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by reffish

Right, I agree that the throw-in was contacted illegally, 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

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

This is way over the line, IMHO. Put him on ignore or "take it somewhere else".

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

Wow. That seems kinda rude and uncalled for.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

billy mac, I'll just say that I'd rather read your basketball posts than these silly posts that, more times than not, take a thread off topic and end any real discussion in the thread.

No offense intended.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

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

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

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 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." The previous rule could possible reward a defensive team for committing a violation, especially during an alternating-possession throw-in.

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.

[reffish]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

Thanks and none taken

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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." The previous rule could possible reward a defensive team for committing a violation, especially during an alternating-possession throw-in.

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.

JR, I know the rule, but I disagree with their reasoning. 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.

I don't know why I would need to rethink my stance; it's not as if it is going to affect the way I call a game. I still haven't worked enough games to actually see this situation, but when I do I'll direct the bench to follow the rules as written.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

True. But they would also LOSE the arrow in this situation at the same time through no fault of their own if they followed your recommendation. Why should one team get penalized when the other team commits a violation?

And that's exactly why the NFHS poobahs changed the rule.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Say what?

The arrow is only changed after the throw-in ends as per NFHS rule 4-42-5. And in the situation being discussed, the throw-in never ended by rule. 'Splain to me how the kicking team doesn't get the AP by committing a violation in the situation being discussed.

And yes, I get it that you feel that the rule is wrong. But I still completely disagree that the non-offending team isn't being penalized by losing an AP when the opponents commit a violation before an AP throw-in ends. The opponents are penalized for their violation by rule. But you are also penalizing the throwing team at the same time by taking away their AP. Not fair..and the rulesmakers agree.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

The throwing team keeps the AP arrow when the throw-in ends with a violation by the other team. Rather than conceiving that as a penalty for the violating team, we might consider it a benefit for the throwing team: the throwing team is entitled to an opportunity to put the ball in play legally.