AP/Throw-in/Violation

[SWMOzebra]

Originally Posted by Spence

Scenario: Held ball. Arrow points to A. A1 takes it out. On the throw-in B1 illegally kicks it before any other contact is made. Whistle.

Have had this exact scenario come up twice so far this year in JH ball. In both cases I was opposite the table on the sideline to administer the throw-in. Before I handed the ball back to A for the throw-in awarded as a result of the violation, I walked out to about the center jump circle and made sure the table understood that the arrow would not be changing direction in this instance when the ball was inbounded.

As you might expect, each time one of the coaches asked "Why?" and I was right there to give a brief answer.

[zm1283]

I've only had it happen once or twice, both in varsity games, but I've never heard any argument from the coaches. I guess they knew the rule. The table crew on the other hand was baffled, which is to be expected.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by zm1283

The table crew on the other hand was baffled, which is to be expected.

Oh my......

Even as we speak, chseagle is charging his taser.

[centkyref]

I've been thinking about this one since it came up a couple of days ago. I'm not arguing with any of the above posts. I read the case book situation cited above but I'm not sure I completely agree with the rationale of the ruling.

In 4-42-5 a.: "The throw in ends when: a) the passed ball touches or is legally touched by another player inbounds." If I remember correctly, the rationale for the arrow not switching is that the throw-in didn't end because of the kicking by the defense, and the arrow cannot switch until the throw-in ends.

What part of the OP doesn't satisfy 4-42-5 a. I agree the kick is illegal and Team A will get a throw in because of the kick. But the ball did touch another player inbounds, and in my view should have ended the throw in. Thus the arrow should be properly switched.

Again, I'm not arguing with anybody here about what the ruling is. I've read the books too and agree with everybody. I'm just saying the ruling doesn't appear to make much sense. The purpose of AP is for the teams to "take turns" on held balls and get rid of the jump ball. It just seems that with this ruling Team B is getting penalized twice for the same illegal action of kicking the ball. Team A gets the ball out of bounds for the kick; and then retains the arrow for the next held ball situation.

[just another ref]

The kick is not a legal touch.

[centkyref]

I understand the kick is not a legal touch. But the ball did touch B1 inbounds, which should have ended the throw in. The first part of the sentence says the throw in ends "when the ball touches..."My point is the ball touched B1's foot and should have ended the throw in then.

We can penalize the illegal touch by B1 then with another throw in by Team A. Again, it doesn't seem equitable (which is the whole point of the rules, to ensure the game is played equitably) to not have the arrow switch in this situation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by centkyref

I understand the kick is not a legal touch. But the ball did touch B1 inbounds, which should have ended the throw in. The first part of the sentence says the throw in ends "when the ball touches..."My point is the ball touched B1's foot and should have ended the throw in then.

We can penalize the illegal touch by B1 then with another throw in by Team A. Again, it doesn't seem equitable (which is the whole point of the rules, to ensure the game is played equitably) to not have the arrow switch in this situation.

I see your thinking.....

There is a difference between being touched by the ball and touching the ball.

If the ball, when it contacts the foot, is not deemed a kicking violation, the player was touched by the ball and play continues and the arrow would be switched. However, if it is deemed a kicking violation, that implies that the player touched the ball (not the ball touched the player), a violation will be called, the arrow will not switch.

[centkyref]

I have to say injecting views and opinions without basing decisions on rules can lead to possible loss of games. JMHO.

I won't inject my opinion on how I rule this play if I ever have it happen during one of my games. I can guarantee that I will never miss this call All I'm saying is that this interpretation doesn't seem right to me.

I do not see where the ball touched another player in the situation It touched B1's foot.

The ruling entitles the team to a proper throw-in due to a held ball. Switching the arrow when the ball is kicked penalizes the team as they lose the next held ball situation. Team A did get to throw the ball in after the original held ball. They get to try another throw in as a result of the kick. Had there been no kick, the arrow would have switched to Team B for the next held ball/ROP or whatever. But since there was a kick, Team A got to try to throw in again PLUS retains the arrow for the next AP situation. Just doesn't seem right. But I won't miss it

[reffish]

centkyref,

I do not see where the ball touched another player in the situation. I see in the OP the ball illegally touching a player. Therefore the throw-in did not end and the arrow can only be switched when the throw-in ends. The subsequent throw-in is for the kicking of the ball, not the AP throw-in.

The ruling entitles the team to a proper throw-in due to a held ball. Switching the arrow when the ball is kicked penalizes the team as they lose the next held ball situation.

I have to say injecting views and opinions without basing decisions on rules can lead to possible loss of games. JMHO.