When do we not reverse the AP arrow?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Shooter14

Now if you go to the rule book, it says a throw in ends when the ball is "touched" OR "legally touched" in bounds.

What do you all think?

Shooter, if you look at the wording it says throw in ends when the "ball touches" or is legally touched by a player. the wording "ball touches" means IT hits you. you aren't doing anything to contact the ball. the second part--legally touched by a player--as Bob says, covers all intentional efforts by players to contact the ball. they are two separate categories.

if you stick your foot out and kick ball that is an intentional act. not legal touch so throw in doesn't end… good luck

[Shooter14]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Shooter, if you look at the wording it says throw in ends when the "ball touches" or is legally touched by a player. the wording "ball touches" means IT hits you. you aren't doing anything to contact the ball. the second part--legally touched by a player--as Bob says, covers all intentional efforts by players to contact the ball. they are two separate categories.

Ok. I agree with this. And I know if a player fouls the arrow doesn't change because the rule comes right out and says "If either team fouls during an A.P. Throw-In, it does not cause the throw in team to lose the arrow."

BUT, the wording says (Pg. 48)"If an opponent commits a VIOLATION during the throw in, the possession arrow is postponed"

Now I look at page 57, "Kicking the ball is a VIOLATION only when it is an intentional act.

So when I put those together, kicking the ball during an alternating possession throw in is a violation. And the rule is clear that a violation on an AP throw-in postpones the arrow. In that same paragraph it clearly comes out and says a foul doesn't cause you to lose the arrow, but a violation just postpones it. Why not put those together and say "A foul committed by either team or a violation of the opponent does not cause the team to lose the arrow?"

Sorry guys not trying to be hard headed. Just discussing.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Shooter14

Ok. I agree with this. And I know if a player fouls the arrow doesn't change because the rule comes right out and says "If either team fouls during an A.P. Throw-In, it does not cause the throw in team to lose the arrow."

BUT, the wording says (Pg. 48)"If an opponent commits a VIOLATION during the throw in, the possession arrow is postponed"

Now I look at page 57, "Kicking the ball is a VIOLATION only when it is an intentional act.

So when I put those together, kicking the ball during an alternating possession throw in is a violation. And the rule is clear that a violation on an AP throw-in postpones the arrow. In that same paragraph it clearly comes out and says a foul doesn't cause you to lose the arrow, but a violation just postpones it. Why not put those together and say "A foul committed by either team or a violation of the opponent does not cause the team to lose the arrow?"

Sorry guys not trying to be hard headed. Just discussing.

it does say that the only time the arrow is lost is when the throw in team violates. in a note or comment.

apology not necessary…glad you want to understand it….

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Shooter14

BUT, the wording says (Pg. 48)"If an opponent commits a VIOLATION during the throw in, the possession arrow is postponed"

It's postponed until the next held ball -- not until the next throw-in.

[Shooter14]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's postponed until the next held ball -- not until the next throw-in.

Is that in the book somewhere? I've read and studied this rule in the rule and case book at length. Had a 30 minute postgame discussion last night with my partner as we were both researching through the books to find a definitive answer. We didn't see anywhere where it expanded upon "postponed". I didn't see it in any notes or additional comments. The conclusion we came to was that the book defines a difference between a foul and a violation. A foul doesn't lose the arrow clearly, a violation postpones. If they are meant to have the same meaning, why in the same paragraph cite a difference between the two?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Shooter14

Is that in the book somewhere? I've read and studied this rule in the rule and case book at length. Had a 30 minute postgame discussion last night with my partner as we were both researching through the books to find a definitive answer.

Did you get to 4.42.5?

[Shooter14]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Did you get to 4.42.5?

Yes we did. It tells us when a throw in ends. According to this, the throw in DOES NOT end on a defensive violation. Only when the offensive team violates. So when the defensive team violates on the kicked ball, the throw in has NOT ENDED. That's why, in my interpretation, it says to postpone the arrow and re-administer the throw in (That's why there is clearly a difference between a foul and a violation, which is outlined on page 48, ART. 5) After the subsequent throw in has successfully ended, in my opinion the arrow would then change.

To me, the reason it states a difference is because you could have a kicked ball off the A.P. throw-in. A re-administered throw in for team A, and then B could foul. In that situation, A would keep the ball because of the foul. But if they had a successful throw-in after the kicked ball violation, the arrow changes.

Thoughts?

[Smitty]

My thought is you're just not getting it. It's been explained (very well) several times.

[Shooter14]

Originally Posted by Smitty

My thought is you're just not getting it. It's been explained (very well) several times.

I have stated page numbers, articles and quotes directly from the rulebook. Here are the responses I have received.

Since the kick was intentional (by definition), it falls in the second category. Since the kick isn't legal (also by definition), the throw-in doesn't end, so the AP arrow isn't switched.

The throw in doesn't end. So wouldn't it still be an AP throw-in?

A gets a throw in for the violation, and the throw-in for the held ball "never happens"

In the rule book (Pg. 40, Art. 5) only a violation by the throw-in team ends the throw-in. A defensive violation does not, therefore, Isn't it still an AP throw-in?

The throw-in doesn't end on a kicked ball because the touch was not legal.

Exactly. The throw-in doesn't end because it was a violation by the defense. So it's still an AP throw-in isn't in?

Because A's ensuing throw-in (after the kick) is for the kicked ball violation. It's no longer an AP throw-in. A still retains the arrow.

Why is it no longer an AP throw-in? The rule says the throw-in ends on a violation by the offense, not the defense.

if you stick your foot out and kick ball that is an intentional act. not legal touch so throw in doesn't end… good luck

You're right. The throw in doesn't end on a kicked ball. So what kind of throw-in do you call the next one? Since the throw-in didn't end, wouldn't it still be an AP throw-in?

it does say that the only time the arrow is lost is when the throw in team violates. in a note or comment.

EXACTLY! So why does the defense lose the arrow on a violation? The arrow is only lost when the throw-in team (offense) violates. Just like you said. Why would the defense lose the arrow for a kicked ball (violation)?

It's postponed until the next held ball -- not until the next throw-in.

Where does the book say that? I've looked all over. Practically read the whole thing. Cite me a page number or something.

Did you get to 4.42.5?

Yep. And it says word for word: "The throw in ends when: The throw in team commits a throw-in violation." Not one word about a defensive violation.



Not one place in this entire book does it say that the defensive team can lose the arrow on a violation on a throw-in. Also not one place where it says the throw in ends on a violation by the defense. Only the offense can lose the arrow on a violation, not the defense. It clearly states this on page 40 and 48.

Maybe I'm crazy!!??

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Shooter14

Not one place in this entire book does it say that the defensive team can lose the arrow on a violation on a throw-in.

Are you trying to make an argument that B should gain the arrow because they violated? In what universe does that make any sense at all to you? They never have the arrow to "lose". You're too tunnel visioned about this. It's really very simple.

Originally Posted by Shooter14

Maybe I'm crazy!!??

Maybe.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Shooter14

I have stated page numbers, articles and quotes directly from the rulebook. Here are the responses I have received.

Since the kick was intentional (by definition), it falls in the second category. Since the kick isn't legal (also by definition), the throw-in doesn't end, so the AP arrow isn't switched.

The throw in doesn't end. So wouldn't it still be an AP throw-in?

A gets a throw in for the violation, and the throw-in for the held ball "never happens"

In the rule book (Pg. 40, Art. 5) only a violation by the throw-in team ends the throw-in. A defensive violation does not, therefore, Isn't it still an AP throw-in?

The throw-in doesn't end on a kicked ball because the touch was not legal.

Exactly. The throw-in doesn't end because it was a violation by the defense. So it's still an AP throw-in isn't in?

Because A's ensuing throw-in (after the kick) is for the kicked ball violation. It's no longer an AP throw-in. A still retains the arrow.

Why is it no longer an AP throw-in? The rule says the throw-in ends on a violation by the offense, not the defense.

if you stick your foot out and kick ball that is an intentional act. not legal touch so throw in doesn't end… good luck

You're right. The throw in doesn't end on a kicked ball. So what kind of throw-in do you call the next one? Since the throw-in didn't end, wouldn't it still be an AP throw-in?

it does say that the only time the arrow is lost is when the throw in team violates. in a note or comment.

EXACTLY! So why does the defense lose the arrow on a violation? The arrow is only lost when the throw-in team (offense) violates. Just like you said. Why would the defense lose the arrow for a kicked ball (violation)?

It's postponed until the next held ball -- not until the next throw-in.

Where does the book say that? I've looked all over. Practically read the whole thing. Cite me a page number or something.

Did you get to 4.42.5?

Yep. And it says word for word: "The throw in ends when: The throw in team commits a throw-in violation." Not one word about a defensive violation.



Not one place in this entire book does it say that the defensive team can lose the arrow on a violation on a throw-in. Also not one place where it says the throw in ends on a violation by the defense. Only the offense can lose the arrow on a violation, not the defense. It clearly states this on page 40 and 48.

Maybe I'm crazy!!??

1. we have a jump ball to start the game. team B gets possession. we now point the arrow to team A.
2. we have a tie up. we go to the arrow. Team A has the arrow. We hand them the ball. they are the offense..they have the ball and the arrow...they are the only team at this moment that could LOSE the arrow. THE DEFENSIVE TEAM ON AN AP THROW IN DOES NOT HAVE THE ARROW TO LOSE.
3. when team A throws the ball in and B kicks it, that is a violation by B. why do we have to throw the ball in again? because B kicked it. the next throw in will be for the kicking violation. Yes, we say the AP throw in did not end but that is only so you know not to change the arrow. timing issues also.
4. just because we say an AP throw in did not end doesnt mean that everthing that happens next has anything to do with the AP throw in. i do believe there is a case play that actually says that the next throw in is for the violation, not related to arrow.

[Shooter14]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Are you trying to make an argument that B should gain the arrow because they violated? In what universe does that make any sense at all to you? They never have the arrow to "lose". You're too tunnel visioned about this. It's really very simple.




Maybe.

No. I'm saying that after the kick. A still gets throw in. If they successfully make the throw in after that, then the arrow switches to B when the throw in ends.

[Shooter14]

Originally Posted by BigCat

3. when team A throws the ball in and B kicks it, that is a violation by B. why do we have to throw the ball in again? because B kicked it. the next throw in will be for the kicking violation. Yes, we say the AP throw in did not end but that is only so you know not to change the arrow. timing issues also.
4. just because we say an AP throw in did not end doesnt mean that everthing that happens next has anything to do with the AP throw in. i do believe there is a case play that actually says that the next throw in is for the violation, not related to arrow.

3. It's not a "next" throw in. By rule it never ended. It's still an AP throw-in for A after Bs violation.
4. Please find the case play if you're going to use it. I swear I've read the case book and it just matches the rulebook which says "a foul" and the arrow won't change, but a kick (violation) on defense postpones the arrow.

Which to me means: You have a tie up awarded to A. B kicks the throw-in. I'm giving it back to A for another throw in. When that throw in ends I'm switching the arrow to B.

[BigCat]

4.42.5. case book. as bob said long ago..it is the exact play we are talking about. read the comment also. i agree nfhs could do better job wording things. in the comment you will see that they say the AP throw in ended...the next throw in is for the violation and then when it is legally touched the arrow does not change.

we know the throw in didnt really end...but that is why they say postponed in the rule. in the case play what they are trying to get clear is that the next throw in is for the violation and does not affect the arrow. yes, nfhs could word things much better.

[Shooter14]

OK great! Thank you so much. I see it now. I thought he was referring to 4.42.5 in the rule book. Man the wording in the rule book could really persuade you the other way, like it did me, but that is the exact case I was looking for. Thank you for finding it. Thanks to everyone for your feedback. I'd say it was an eventful first day as a registered user on this site. But this is the reason I finally joined. Thank you!