NFHS: Setting the Possession Arrow

[Brad]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

because the throw-in is for the violation...it is NOT an AP throw-in.

Good point... because if A violates on the throw-in, it would become B's throw-in and B would retain the arrow -- a situation that many HS timers would probably be unfamiliar with and might screw up.

[JetMetFan]

JUMPER CATCHING A TOSS NOT CONSIDERED PLAYER CONTROL (4-12-1): An exception was added to the definition of control by a player when, during a jump ball, a jumper catches the ball prior to the ball touching the floor or a non-jumper. By rule, and previously reinforced in a Case Book situation, if a jumper caught the ball on a jump ball, that player had controlled the ball, but had violated by catching the tap. The committee felt the penalty of awarding the ball and the arrow to the opponent was too severe. This change simplifies the rule by only considering the violation by the jumper catching the tap, resulting in the opposing team receiving the throw-in, and the arrow set toward the team that violated.

[johnny d]

can somebody please find the reference for how the nfhs stated the arrow should be set in 1923? i would like to include it in my dissertation as to the history of setting the arrow the next time i have a coach argue that we set the arrow wrong. this last tidbit of information will most likely be the deciding factor as to whether or not i change his opinion about our ruling

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Can somebody please find the reference for how the nfhs stated the arrow should be set in 1923?

I don't think that they had possession arrows in 1923. Back then, they had jump balls to decide held balls. Of course, I wasn't around in 1923, so we'll have to wait for Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. to comment. In 1923 he had already been officiating for several years.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I don't think that they had possession arrows in 1923. Back then, they had jump balls to decide held balls. Of course, I wasn't around in 1923, so we'll have to wait for Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. to comment. In 1923 he had already been officiating for several years.

Yes, the Abomination Upon the Game which we call Alternating Possession did not exist in 1923. LOL

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Yes, the Abomination Upon the Game which we call Alternating Possession did not exist in 1923. MTD, Sr.

How can anyone question your response? After all, you were an eye witness.

Did you vote for Coolidge, or Davis?