Alternating Possession Debate
 

Had a situation Tuesday - inbounds play - ball was kicked by defender before the ball legally touched player or court inbounds - therefore - throw end had not ended. My take is that by rule 4-42-5 the throw in team keeps the ball and the arrow - partner disagrees - what say you?

What was his reasoning? What did he say when you said the throw-in had not ended?

Reasoning
 

He thought the throw in ended when touched by the defender - even if touched illegally.

Smitty, I know you've been around here long enough to KNOW the answer to this one.

And it's not "what say you", it's "what does the rule book say". ;)

Sounds like he's answered his own question. The throw in ends when the ball is LEGALLY touched inbounds. The ball was not legally touched inbounds. Team B violated by kicking it. A gets a new throw in and keeps the arrow.

I'm not sure what to tell him then if he doesn't know when a throw-in ends.

Isn't there a case play on this?

Yes. I don't have my books with me, but I have seen it before.

Pull out the rule book and show it to him.

Thanks for the verification all
 

You are correct BNR - but when a vet argues with you it sometimes creates some self doubt.

Case book play 4.42.5 is this exact play.

When a vet argues with me it usually reassures me that I'm right. :D

I worked a jv boys game a couple years ago and stayed to watch a really varsity game worked by three veteran guys. Fourth quarter, illegal screen and the vets let the offenedd team shoot one and one. I tried to tell one of the vets from the end line that they were wrong, so did the furious coach. To no avail,both the coach and I lost. When I got home I sent all three a copy of the rule in a nice way and I got apologies from all three. :)

As I posted earlier today. Veteran official != official that knows the rules.

Maybe, but when they sound sure of themselves (which they usually do), they can sound convincing enough to create doubt.

Kickball ...
 

4.42.5 SITUATION: Team A is awarded an alternating-possession throw-in.
A1’s throw-in pass is illegally kicked by B2. 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 (illegal touching) occurred. 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. COMMENT: The kicking violation ends the alternating-possession
throw-in and as a result, a non-alternating-possession 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.

I hear you. I guess I'm arrogant enough to not care about years of experience when I know the official is full of it. :)

That's never been enough to create doubt for me, even during my formative years in officiating. Only thing that would create doubt is a rule or case book citation, which in my dealings with "vets" at the HS level, always seems to be oddly missing from the conversations.

I'm with you. But I've been able to convince partners to do the wrong thing (my first few games, working MS in rural Iowa) and allow any player on the floor to shoot FTs for an injured shooter. Now, I usually soften the discussion with vets by saying something along the lines of, "I thought it was X, but you've got me curious," and proceed to open the book and find it.

Let's See, Disqualified Player, Thirty Seconds, Or Twenty Seconds ???
 

Rookie officials have recently spent a lot of time with their heads buried in rulebooks, and casebooks, to prepare for the rookie exam. They are only required to know (with the exception of the "new" team control on a throwin backcourt rule) the most recent set of rules. A difficult, but not impossible task, and some do it quite well.

Veteran officials have been through years, and years, of rule changes, and casebook interpretation changes. Dozens of changes for most. Hundreds of changes for a few. Sometimes these changes can be just as confusing, or more confusing, than the original rules that they learned many, many, years ago.

I had a brand new official straighten me out with the "new" kicked ball on a throwin interpretation a few years ago during a freshman game. He was so new that he still had that new official smell. My response to him, "Thanks partner, nice job."

Shouldn't we all be doing that, regardless of experience? I know plenty of great veteran officials that know the rules very very well that never stop studying the book.

Illegal Screen, Bonus, Free Throws, Or No Free Throws ???
 

Absolutely, but this is what can confuse a few veteran officials:

Rookies have to learn one set of rules, one casebook, and only have to avoid some of the rule myths that they may have acquired as a player, or fan. There is no excuse for veterans not to have a complete understanding of the rules, but, occasionally, some may screw up an interpretation due to confusion as a result of hundreds of rule changes, and interpretation changes, over many years. Rookies don't have to deal with hundreds of rule changes, and interpretation changes. For rookies, everything is new, nothing has ever changed.

Excessive swinging elbows, with no contact, is a "snap" for a rookie official. A veteran official has to give that interpretation a little thought before making a ruling. One of the jumpers illegally catches a jump ball. Easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy for a rookie official. Veterans need to give that a little thought. Team A is ready to play after using ten seconds of a sixty second time out, that they requested, and were granted. Team B is not ready to play. You make the call? A rookie can do it in his sleep. A veteran has to be awake to make a correct ruling. A defender tries to block a pass with their leg, and the ball hits their leg above the knee. Rookies: Boring. Veterans: Now let me think about this.

I've always maintained that the rules are easy, at least they were for me over thirty years ago. It's the rule changes that drive me crazy.