AP/Throw-in/Violation

[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.

[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.