AP/Throw-in/Violation

[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.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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.

[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.