Agree. It is a violation.

The penalty can't just be to award a throwin since the offended team already has that. It has to be more if there is to be a penalty. The only thing we've got is a technical foul. That is pretty big for the situation, so the team gets a free one (the warning), then the next one costs them.

As for its effect on the AP arrow. It is a violation. The new throwin is for the violation. It is no longer an AP throwin.

except the dumb case play says the throwin remains an AP. see nevada earlier post...

Missed that post. I guess the ruling is the opposite of the rule. Or perhaps the idea is that even not flipping the arrow is more of a consequence they want for the first offense.

yeah, it could be either one of those. what i am sure of is if they wanted the outcome to be not flipping the arrow they should have said it differently...as opposed to the "throw in hadnt ended...blah...."

Yep, and I should have known that it was under 9. But this is the kind of thing that usually results in a missed test question, but other than that, is of no great consequence. It is a violation because it is listed with the other violations. The reason I don't think of it as a violation is that it has no penalty per se. It has a warning. Then it is a technical foul, which has its own penalty.



Semantics: The books are full of them. :o