AP/Throw-in/Violation

[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.