When do we not reverse the AP arrow?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It most certainly is. Check rule 9.

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.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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...."

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It most certainly is. Check rule 9.

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.