AP Throw-in or Not (Fed rules)

[McMac]

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

Here is the case in question:

During an alternating possession throw-in by Team A, B-1 breaks the plane of the boundary line. The official stops play, issues a warning to Team B, awards the ball back to Team A and rules this is still an alternating possession throw-in.

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?

[APG]

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)

[McMac]

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.

[McMac]

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.

[APG]

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.

NFHS 2009-10 Basketball Rules Interpretations SITUATION 3

Bob explained it this way:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

What's the penalty for kicking the ball? A throw-in.

What's the penalty for breaking the plane? A warning (and continue with the current throw-in).

That's why there's a different ruling in the two case plays.

[McMac]

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.

[McMac]

Originally Posted by APG

NFHS 2009-10 Basketball Rules Interpretations SITUATION 3

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.