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.