AP/Throw-in/Violation

[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.

[reffish]

when the ball touches OR illegally touches a player....can't have them both, can't pick one, must have only one....kicking the ball is illegal, throw-in does not end

[DLH17]

what happens to the AP when the ball is held immediately after A1 throws the ball in bounds?

[reffish]

what happens to the AP when the ball is held immediately after A1 throws the ball in bounds?

Mmm, I say the throw-in ended because the ball was legally touched. Arrow gets switched and subsequent throw-in is awarded to Team B.

[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

[bob jenkins]

All of your logic was mentioned / tried when the rule first came into effect.

The rules makers decided "the other way."

Put in a rules change request if you feel strongly about it.

[bob jenkins]

All of your logic was mentioned / tried when the rule first came into effect.

The rules makers decided "the other way."

Put in a rules change request if you feel strongly about it.

[Jurassic Referee]

It's a semantics issue. For the proper intent and purpose of the rule, it should have read "The throw-in ends when it legally touches or is touched by another player in-bounds." That's the way we call it, and that's the way the rulesmakers intend for us to call it.

If you disagree, check it out with your state interpreter. And as Bob said, if the semantics bother you, put in a rules change request to have the language cleaned up.

[reffish]

But the ball did touch another player inbounds, and in my view should have ended the throw in.

Your part of in my view denotes you are injecting your personal view and not basing decisions on rules knowledge leads to trouble.........oh well, you said you will rule correctly, then so be it. I'm done.

Rule 4-42-5a "The throw-in ends when the passed ball touches (like throwing the ball against the back of the defender and the thrower getting the ball and shooting the ball) or is legally touched by another player inbounds."

My point here is throw-ins end when ball touches someone or someone legally touches the ball.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by reffish

But the ball did touch another player inbounds, and in my view should have ended the throw in.

Your part of in my view denotes you are injecting your personal view and not basing decisions on rules knowledge leads to trouble.........oh well, you said you will rule correctly, then so be it. I'm done.

Rule 4-42-5a "The throw-in ends when the passed ball touches (like throwing the ball against the back of the defender and the thrower getting the ball and shooting the ball) or is legally touched by another player inbounds."

My point here is throw-ins end when ball touches someone or someone legally touches the ball.

And your point is a bunch of steaming doo-doo. And YOU are injecting YOUR personal view and not basing that view on rules knowledge. May I suggest you take a second and actually read the rules reference that Tanner gave you in post #4 of this thread..i.e. NFHS case book play 4.42.5. In that case play, you will find in the RULING: "As a result of B2's kicking violation, team A is awarded a new throw-in at the designated spot nearest to where the kicking violation (illegal touching) occurred. Since the alternating-possession throw-in had not been contacted legally, the throw-in has NOT ended and therefore the arrow remains with Team A for the next alternating-possession throw-in.."

That case play gives you the purpose and intent of the rule, as previously stated.

[BktBallRef]

You can argue a lot of things but arguing that an illegal kick legally ends a throw-in ain't one of them.

You two needs to get over the semantics realize that this interp is correct.

[reffish]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And your point is a bunch of steaming doo-doo. And YOU are injecting YOUR personal view and not basing that view on rules knowledge. May I suggest you take a second and actually read the rules reference that Tanner gave you in post #4 of this thread..i.e. NFHS case book play 4.42.5. In that case play, you will find in the RULING: "As a result of B2's kicking violation, team A is awarded a new throw-in at the designated spot nearest to where the kicking violation (illegal touching) occurred. Since the alternating-possession throw-in had not been contacted legally, the throw-in has NOT ended and therefore the arrow remains with Team A for the next alternating-possession throw-in.."

That case play gives you the purpose and intent of the rule, as previously stated.

Right, I agree that the throw-in was contacted 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

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It's a semantics issue. For the proper intent and purpose of the rule, it should have read "The throw-in ends when it legally touches or is touched by another player in-bounds." That's the way we call it, and that's the way the rulesmakers intend for us to call it.

If you disagree, check it out with your state interpreter. And as Bob said, if the semantics bother you, put in a rules change request to have the language cleaned up.

Disagree. Since the meaning of the rule is clear to (almost) everyone, the issue is syntax, not semantics.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The issue is syntax.

Is that like the tax on cigarettes, and alcohol?