When do we not reverse the AP arrow?

[Shooter14]

Are you guys citing NFHS rules? If so I'm confused about this one still. My partner and I got into a discussion about this one after our game last night.

I don't have my book on me right now but in the casebook it said on a foul during an alternating possession throw in, that the arrow would not be reversed and would stay with A. It mentioned that case play specifically. But it said on a kick to "postpone" the arrow. At the end of the "COMMENT" in the casebook, it said the arrow will change when a throw in ends.

Now if you go to the rule book, it says a throw in ends when the ball is "touched" OR "legally touched" in bounds. Our interpretation of this is that by rule when the ball is kicked it is "touched" inbounds. The reason the book says "postpone the arrow" is because you are going to do another throw in and as long as there is no foul or another kick violation the arrow WILL CHANGE and B will get the next throw in.

What do you all think?

[Smitty]

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. Our interpretation of this is that by rule when the ball is kicked it is "touched" inbounds. The reason the book says "postpone the arrow" is because you are going to do another throw in and as long as there is no foul or another kick violation the arrow WILL CHANGE and B will get the next throw in.

What do you all think?

Read JetMetFan's response above.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Shooter14

Are you guys citing NFHS rules? If so I'm confused about this one still. My partner and I got into a discussion about this one after our game last night.

I don't have my book on me right now but in the casebook it said on a foul during an alternating possession throw in, that the arrow would not be reversed and would stay with A. It mentioned that case play specifically. But it said on a kick to "postpone" the arrow. At the end of the "COMMENT" in the casebook, it said the arrow will change when a throw in ends.

Now if you go to the rule book, it says a throw in ends when the ball is "touched" OR "legally touched" in bounds. Our interpretation of this is that by rule when the ball is kicked it is "touched" inbounds. The reason the book says "postpone the arrow" is because you are going to do another throw in and as long as there is no foul or another kick violation the arrow WILL CHANGE and B will get the next throw in.

What do you all think?

I think you're mis-interpreting it.

If it just said "legally touches" then some (probably even some here) would ask "what about the play where the inbounder throws the ball off the back of the defender and then is the first to touch? Since the defender didn't touch the ball (the ball touched him/her), the throw in hasn't ended and A1 can't get the ball."

So, the rule needs to include "is touched by" (an inadvertent act on the part of the defender) or "legally touches" (an intentional act).

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.

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

[Shooter14]

Thanks for the feedback guys. It seems like I'm getting two different answers though.

I'm still having issue with why the casebook has both these situations; "foul" and "kick ball" and has two different rulings. On the foul it clearly comes out and says "A will keep the arrow", but on the kick it says "postpone" the arrow.

In my opinion, if an inbounder throws the ball off a players back then that is a "legal" touch because a player in bounds contacted the ball, whether deliberate or not. "The throw in ends when the ball is touched or legally touched." In that case, the ball was "legally touched" in bounds.

I just feel like there is a reason both plays are in the casebook and a reason it says to "postpone" the arrow. I believe it's in the casebook because, in my interpretation, a kick is the only time, by definition that a throw in ends (because it was touched inbounds) but the arrow is not changed (because of the kick) until another subsequent throw in is allowed and has ended.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Shooter14

Thanks for the feedback guys. It seems like I'm getting two different answers though.

I'm still having issue with why the casebook has both these situations; "foul" and "kick ball" and has two different rulings. On the foul it clearly comes out and says "A will keep the arrow", but on the kick it says "postpone" the arrow.

In my opinion, if an inbounder throws the ball off a players back then that is a "legal" touch because a player in bounds contacted the ball, whether deliberate or not. "The throw in ends when the ball is touched or legally touched." In that case, the ball was "legally touched" in bounds.

I just feel like there is a reason both plays are in the casebook and a reason it says to "postpone" the arrow. I believe it's in the casebook because, in my interpretation, a kick is the only time, by definition that a throw in ends (because it was touched inbounds) but the arrow is not changed (because of the kick) until another subsequent throw in is allowed and has ended.

Read Bob's response again. The throw-in doesn't end on a kicked ball because the touch was not legal.

[Shooter14]

Ok. But it is still touched, just not legally. To me, that still meets the provisions of when a throw in ends. But oh well. I am going to go with what you guys tell me, that is why I'm on here, to learn from you guys.

So in this situation. Please outright say what you guys are going to do in this situation.

A1 has ball for alternating possession throw in, B1 kicks the throw in. A1 gets ball for another throw in, passes into A2. You changing the arrow or not?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Shooter14

A1 has ball for alternating possession throw in, B1 kicks the throw in. A1 gets ball for another throw in, passes into A2. You changing the arrow or not?

No.

I hope that is clear enough.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Shooter14

Ok. But it is still touched, just not legally. To me, that still meets the provisions of when a throw in ends. But oh well. I am going to go with what you guys tell me, that is why I'm on here, to learn from you guys.

So in this situation. Please outright say what you guys are going to do in this situation.

A1 has ball for alternating possession throw in, B1 kicks the throw in. A1 gets ball for another throw in, passes into A2. You changing the arrow or not?

If this all happens in a sequence, then no, you don't change the arrow. 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.

[Shooter14]

Ok thank you guys!

[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?