Kicking an APTI

[bainsey]

From RefSchool...

Team A is awarded an alternating possession throw-in. A-1's throw-in pass is illegally kicked by B-2. The official rules a kicking violation.

The official instructs the scorer to change the arrow to Team B and then awards the ball to Team A for a throw-in nearest to where the kicking violation occurred. Is the official correct?

[rlarry]

No. the throw in is now for the kicking violation. Since the AP throw in never legally ended, A keeps the arrow

[Da Official]

I vote no...

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

From RefSchool...

Team A is awarded an alternating possession throw-in. A-1's throw-in pass is illegally kicked by B-2. The official rules a kicking violation.

The official instructs the scorer to change the arrow to Team B and then awards the ball to Team A for a throw-in nearest to where the kicking violation occurred. Is the official correct?

What are your thoughts?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

What are your thoughts?

A bit conflicted.

As Rufus correctly pointed out...

Originally Posted by Rufus

Since the alternating-posession throw-in had not been contacted legally, the throw-in has not ended...

However, 4-42-5a says...

The throw-in ends when the passed ball touches or is legally touched by another player in bounds.

Notice that this rule doesn't say "legally touches or is legally touched." It just says "touches." In the play, the ball was indeed touched, and you could argue that made the throw-in over, though he illegal touching made for a kicking violation.

I just wonder why they'd leave out "legally" before touches, when the case book says something different.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bainsey

A bit conflicted.

As Rufus correctly pointed out...



However, 4-42-5a says...



Notice that this rule doesn't say "legally touches or is legally touched." It just says "touches." In the play, the ball was indeed touched, and you could argue that made the throw-in over, though he illegal touching made for a kicking violation.

I just wonder why they'd leave out "legally" before touches, when the case book says something different.

In a kick, the player touches the ball (albeit illegally).

The ball touches a player when the player's back is turned, or the player is motionless, etc. The ball can't touch an inbounds player illegally.

[bainsey]

There's the crux, Bob. Thanks.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The ball can't touch an inbounds player illegally.

The ball can't do anything, so can't do anything illegally.

[Back In The Saddle]

The ball touching a player is a result only of the actions of the thrower. The player being touched is a passive participant in the act and, AFAIK, there is no way for the thrower to illegally touch another player with the throw-in.

Being "touched by", however, is about the action of the player on the floor. In this case, the player seeks out the ball and causes the touch. This player's action may be legal or illegal.

That's my take.

[Rufus]

From 4.42.5 ruling in the case book:

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-posession throw-in had not been contacted legally, the throw-in has not ended and therefore, the arrow remains with Team A for the next AP throw-in. COMMENT: The kicking violation ends the AP throw-in and as a result, a non-AP throw-in is administered. When the ball is legally touched on the subsequent throw-in following the kicking violation, the arrow shall not be changed and shall remain with Team A.