Aleternating Possession Rule/Question

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Throw-in team violates, arrow switches. Foul by either team, no switch.

This is topsy turvy?

Topsy turvy to me because the penalty for a violation is greater than that of a foul. My mind suggests to me that the result of a foul should be more punitive than that of a violation. That seeming inequity is how I try to remember the proper application of the rule.

Perhaps in my mind only--sometimes a very topsy turvy place into which to delve. Then again, there are a lot of things in my mind that don't make sense. This only scratches the surface.

[BktBallRef]

We have an AP throw-in.
If Team A violates, it's a throw-in violation.
Therefore, we change the arrow.

We have an AP throw-in.
If Team A fouls, it has nothing to do with the AP throw-in.
Therefore, we do not change the arrow.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

We have an AP throw-in.
If Team A violates, it's a throw-in violation.
Therefore, we change the arrow.

We have an AP throw-in.
If Team A fouls, it has nothing to do with the violation.
Therefore, we do not change the arrow.

Did you mean it has nothing to do with the throw-in?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Topsy turvy to me because the penalty for a violation is greater than that of a foul. My mind suggests to me that the result of a foul should be more punitive than that of a violation. That seeming inequity is how I try to remember the proper application of the rule.

Perhaps in my mind only--sometimes a very topsy turvy place into which to delve. Then again, there are a lot of things in my mind that don't make sense. This only scratches the surface.

I agree with your train of thought.