By the wording of the rule 6-4-5 it doesn't specify. This might be one of those intent instances that some of our leadership can shed some light on.

At this point, I'm going change of arrow and the next throw in for Team B is for the kick by Team A.

NFHS 4.42.5 (Emphasis mine)

The throw-in ends when:

(a) the passed ball touches or is legally touched by another player inbounds

(b) The passed ball touches ir is touched by another player out of bounds, except as in 7-5-7 [endline after score]

(c) The throw-in team commits a throw-in violation

You're correct. I didn't consider a kick by the offensive team. I was only thinking of the defensive team kicking the ball. The part about the throwin team violating is not restricted to throwin violations...but just violations.

RULE 6-4-5 . . . The opportunity to make an alternating-possession throw-in is lost if the throw-in team violates. (cut more on fouls)

While all violations end the throwin it doesn't limit the loss of the arrow to throwin violations..

You need to look in the right spot -- 4-throw-in (4-42?) and see when it ends. I'm "certain" it says "throw-in violation."

4-42-5, I put the text above. Throw-in violation only.

Thanks guys. I'm convinced.

4-42-5 is the secondary part of this ruling.

Team doesn't lose arrow, but they would lose throw-in privledge and Team B gets the ball for a kicking violation by Team A. No change in arrow.

I'm not sure what play you are referring to but I think you have this one wrong.

A/P throw-in for Team A. Player A1 commits a kicking violation. Team B gets a throw in for the violation. The arrow is reversed and pointed to Team B for the next A/P throw-in.

6.4.5A

Beautiful!

I learned something today.

Life is good.

Look at 6-4-4 and 4-42-5.

6-4-4 the direction of the possession arrow is reversed immediately after an alternating possession throw-in ends. An alternating-possession throw-in ends when the throw-in ends as in 4-42-5.

4-42-5 c. The throw-in team commits a throw-in violation.

Consequently, a kick ball by team A doesn't end Team A's alternating possession throw in. So they don't lose the arrow. They keep the arrow, but team B gets the throw-in for the kick ball violation.

6-4-5 The opportunity to make an alternating-possession throw-in is lost if the throw-in team violates.

As the other rules help us interpret what violations are being referred to, we can deduce from 4-42-5 c that it's only throw-in violations.

Case Book 6.4.5 Situation A.

4-42-5 tells us how a throw-in ends. If an A/P throw-in ends we reverse the arrow. But that is not the only time we reverse the arrow. 6-4-5 gives us another time. The Case Book play 6.4.5A even tells us that a violation by Team A during an A/P throw-in is the only way a team loses its turn under the procedure.

If the throw-in ends as described in 4-42-5 then they used their opportunity and they did not lose it. 6-4-5 is a way (and the only way) to lose the arrow without completing the throw-in.

The "violation" in 6.4.5A means a "throw-in violation" (5-seconds, stepping across the line, not passing the ball directly on the court, etc.).

It doesn't mean a kicking violation.

So, AP throw-in, A1 throws a throw-in pass. The pass is heading OOB and A2 is giving chase, he's left with the choice of letting it go OOB or kicking it. You're saying if he kicks it his team keeps the arrow?

Far fetched? Maybe, but it hardly seems like an intended advantage.

I don't agree.

6-4 are the rules addressing Alternating Possession.
4-42 are the rules addressing Throw-in, Thrower and Designated Spot.

4-42 does not address or have any bearing on when the Alternating Possession arrow is reversed. It only addresses the the items mentioned above. For the purposes of Alternating Possession, it does tell us when a throw-in ends. And a throw-in ends when the throw-in team commits a throw-in violation.

6-4 addresses how we are to handle the Alternating Possessions and when the Alternating Arrow is to be reversed. It has 2 articles that address this. 6-4-4 tells us that the arrow is reversed when the throw-in ends. If 6-4-5 didn't mean something other that 6-4-4, why would it be in the book. It would be redundant.

"Violation" is defined in 4-46. Throw-in violations are part of that definition as described in 9-2. But I don't believe the NF chose to write their rules by saying that we defined "violations" but as far as 6-4 goes only consider 9-2
and ignore 9-4. I do think 9-4 is the only violation that would likely happen during a throw-in, but it is very possible.

If 6-4-5 didn't mean any violation, why would 6.4.5A say: "A violation by Team A during an alternating-possession throw-in is the only way a team loses its turn under the procedure?" All of the ways that a throw-in ends would be a way that a team loses its turn under the procedure.

I am not convinced that 6-4-5 only refers to throw-in violations.

Edit: Since this thread has taken on a few scenarios, let me clarify: Team A is awarded an alternating-possession throw-in. A violation (9-4 or any violation 9-1 thru 13) by Team B = no reversal of the alternating-possession arrow. A violation (9-4 or any violation 9-1 thru 13) by Team A = reversal of the alternating-possession arrow.

I've been instructed that it's ALL violations. Thinking about it, though, what kind of violations COULD you have here that aren't throw-in violations? Kicked ball, excessive elbow swinging (almost non-existent here), anything else?

Probably only 9-4 and 9-13. I am not very imaginative but like you, I think 9-13 (elbows) is very unlikely. But a kick or fist seems like it could happen.