AP Throw-in or Not (Fed rules)
 

We were having a discussion tonight at our meeting about AP throw-ins.

Here is the case in question:
My position is the new throw-in is NOT an AP throw-in, but a designated spot throw-in for the violation of the plane (9-2-10). The arrow is NOT switched after the second throw-in and A will have the opportunity at the next AP situation.

The other official's position is it is still an AP throw-in and the arrow WILL be switched after the second throw-in.

Who is right?

NFHS Basketball Interpretations 2009-2010

SITUATION 3: During an alternating-possession throw-in by Team A, B1 breaks the plane of the boundary line. The official stops play.

RULING: Team B is issued a warning for breaking the throw-in plane. Since the original alternating-possession throw-in had not ended, the ball is again awarded to Team A and remains an alternating-possession throw-in. Any type of further delay by Team B results in a team technical foul. (4-42-5; 4-47-1; 6-4-4; 7-6-4; 10-1-5c)

But 6-4-5 states:
The opportunity to make an alternating-possession throw-in is lost if the throw-in team violates. If either team fouls during an alternating-possession throw-in, it does not cause the throw-in team to lose the possession arrow. If an opponent commits a violation during the throw-in, the possession arrow is postponed.

The bold part is added to the rule book this year. It was not in the '11-'12 rule book.

Situation 4.42.5
 

Play states an AP throw-in, and B illegally kicks the ball.
Ruling: As a result of B's kicking violation, Team A is awarded a new throw-in at the designated spot nearest to where the kicking violation occurred. Since the AP throw-in had not been contacted illegally, 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.

This is where I get my basis for the case play in the OP.

A kicked ball is a violation. The first instance in which a team breaks the throw-in plane illegally is a warning. At least that's how I interpret NFHS to view the play even though you'll find breaking the plane to be under rule 9, throw-in violations. Wouldn't be the first time an interpretation didn't vibe with the rule as written. We talked about this when the interpretation I quoted came out.

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...ation-3-a.html

Bob explained it this way:

But 9-2-10 says: the opponent(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary-line plane until the ball has been released on a throw-in pass.

And under penalty: The first violation of the throw-in boundary-line plane by an opponent(s) of the thrower shall result in a team warning for delay being given (one warning per team per game).

Nothing in this goes against the provision of 6-5-4.

I've only provided you exactly what NFHS has said about the particular play. It's not the first time NF interpretation has gone contrary to what's in the book.

BTW, the portion of the rule from this year that you quote hasn't changed how we've this play has been adjudicated recently.

After reading through the old thread, I still stand on my position and the position that the rule book trumps interps, case book, et al.

Team B is only receiving a warning. It is not a violation for which Team is being awarded the ball for a throw-in.

Yes, the rule book is correct. But the interps and the case plays are also correct. The only thing wrong here is your interp of the play and the rule.

in the op, the ap throw-in did not end. read the citation apg put carefully, therefore the subsequent throw-in, after the delay warning, is still the ap throw-in and the arrow will change.

in the kick play, the throw-in ENDS with the kick, therefore, they get the throw-in for the kick and keep the arrow.

Venting...
 

[RANT]And the problem with the NHFS Interps are the provided one year and not in future Rule/Casebooks. How can someone who does not have that 1 year (as I took off 2009-2010 for personal reasons) rule book know about the Interp that they came out with.

This goes in-line with the Interp they came out with for the whole TC on throw-in last season. At least they fixed that.[END RANT]

1. Most of us agree with your opinion of their use of interps for this purpose.

2. I'm not sure they fixed the rule on TC. Haven't seen the book yet.

Per 4.42.5, the throw-in does NOT end on the kicking violation. So the logic there is flawed.

4-42-5: Throw-in ENDS on: touches or legally touched by inbounds/out of bounds player, or throw-in team violation.

We have a thread nailed to the top of this forum to solve that issue. :)