AP/Throw-in/Violation
 

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. Hand the ball to A1 again. A1 throws it in to A2 where he and B2 both grab it and we have a held ball.

Am I correct that the arrow should still be pointing to A and A1 will take it out again? And , if so, is my explanation to the B coach that A1 never got to finish their AP throw in due to your player committing a violation. The subsequent throw-in was the throw-in for a violation and the next throw-in was the AP throw-in. Close? Correct?

Correct

If the table is paying attention & doing job right, the AP will not switch until after the throw-in.

Being a violation thanks to B's actions, AP stays with A.

4.42.5 Situation

99.9% of table crews at high school games will be paying attention and doing their job and still won't know this rule. They'll see the ball touched and switch the arrow.

Yup. Percentage might be higher. ;)

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.

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.

Oh my......

Even as we speak, chseagle is charging his taser. :eek:

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.

The kick is not a legal touch.

AP throw-in
 

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.

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.

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

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

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;)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 <font color = red>(illegal touching)</font> occurred. <font color = red>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.</font>."

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

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

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

Smoke 'Em If You Got 'Em ...
 

Is that like the tax on cigarettes, and alcohol?

If only there were a tax on this crap you insist on adding to every thread.

We could call it the get a ****in' life or take it somewhere else tax.

:cool: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 :(

Just Use The Scroll Bar ...
 

bob jenkins: It says "Moderator" under your screen name. Go ahead and delete any of my posts that are an attempt, successful, or not (which is typical for me), at humor.

If you want, like some other Forum members, I can be overly sarcastic, call other Forum members who I disagree with names, be impatient, use profanity, etc. If you think about my history on the Forum, I believe that I have been, in almost all cases, a pillar of civility. Occasionally, yes, maybe rarely, I may add something of value, either a comment, question, suggestion, opinion, or citation, to a thread. And yes, I know that I probably post too many off topic images, or unsuccessful attempts at humor. But, for me participating on this Forum is a lot better than watching some of the crap that's on television. I'm an empty nester. I work, sleep, communicate with my adult children, enjoy working in the yard and garden, go to church, and officiate basketball. You're right, it's not much of a life, but it's my life, and I'm doing the best I can with it. In any case, in a few weeks I'll be out training new officials several nights a week and then I'll be officiating games several night each week, and won't have as much time to post on the Forum.

Fixed it for ya. The kicked throw-in was contacted illegally. That was my point, and the point of the case play cited also.

And also note the "smiley" that was inserted at the end of the "steaming doo-doo" statement. In no way was that statement meant to be demeaning or derisory towards yourself.

This is way over the line, IMHO. Put him on ignore or "take it somewhere else".

Wow. That seems kinda rude and uncalled for.

billy mac, I'll just say that I'd rather read your basketball posts than these silly posts that, more times than not, take a thread off topic and end any real discussion in the thread. :(

No offense intended.

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.

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." <font color = red>The previous rule could possible reward a defensive team for committing a violation, especially during an alternating-possession throw-in.</font>

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.

Thanks and none taken;)

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.

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.

True. But they would also LOSE the arrow in this situation at the same time through no fault of their own if they followed your recommendation. Why should one team get penalized when the other team commits a violation?

And that's exactly why the NFHS poobahs changed the rule.

Say what? :confused:

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.

The throwing team keeps the AP arrow when the throw-in ends with a violation by the other team. Rather than conceiving that as a penalty for the violating team, we might consider it a benefit for the throwing team: the throwing team is entitled to an opportunity to put the ball in play legally.

One could make the argument that a team is never penalized for a kick. The other team gets the ball. Where's the penalty? In the vast majority of cases, the other team already had the ball. Rather, it is a case of the team not being allowed to benefit from the kick.

I've always found it much easier just to simply accept what the rules say rather than going through this mind-numbing exercise of paralysis through analysis. Iow, just read NFHS rule 9-4 on a deliberately kicked ball and the accompanying penalty for it. And then apply it to rule 4-42-5 for an AP throw-in.

But that's just me......:D

One could also read NFHS rule 9-4 and watch that particular argument go down the ol' crapper. :D

What if the offensive team commits the violation? Then they are penalized with a loss of possession.

What's the penalty when a defensive player causes the ball to go OOB? What's the penalty when an offensive player causes the ball to go OOB?


So what should happen on kicked ball, make the player who kicked the ball sit out for a minute? :rolleyes:

While their rules must be followed, their reasoning isn't infallible, JR. They aren't exactly the Council of Nicaea. They did give us that indefensible backcourt interp.

I have to admit, I'm not understanding your point. You said there's no penalty for a kicked ball. I can sort of understand that when the defense is guilty. They just stop the game and give the ball back to the team that had it.

But my point is that when the offense kicks the ball (or causes it to go out of bounds), there is an obvious penalty. The ball is given to the other team.

The penalty is never severe, like free throws or temporary disqualification; but there is a clear penalty nonetheless.

As you probably know, infallibility didn't come up until the Vatican I, in 1870. :D

No, I think that was Viagara in 1998.

You're close; that was the great inphallibility dilemma.

Well done. Point to you, sir.

On a defensive kick, the defensive team often has a good chance at recovering the ball. The penalty removes that opportunity.

In general, throw-ins are more difficult than passes form inbounds locations as a result of only have a limited number of directions that the thrower has to pass the ball. I suppose the idea behind the AP throwin is that the team is allowed to get the ball inbounds (not necessarily to their own team) unless they mess it up....the defense can't prevent it from getting inbounds.

My point is that the offense is always more severely penalized for similar acts because they lose possession. Same thing when both teams violate on the first of 2 free throws. Offense loses a free throw attempt, defense is not hurt at all.