When do we not reverse the AP arrow?

[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.

[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.

[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 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!

[Matt]

Originally Posted by 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!

FED:

X.X.X=Case Play
X-X-X=Rule

[Nevadaref]

Welcome to the forum. As you have experienced on your first day, there is much to learn here. There are several excellent officials who have numerous years of officiating. That tenure is of great help in situations such as this one in which the rule has developed and changed over time. Unfortunately, that process also leads to some confusion as the members of the NFHS Rules Committee, the NFHS Board of Directors, and the Rules Book Editor all change over the years. When new people assume these positions they don't share all of the thoughts of the previous people. You can find several examples of this.
Sadly, this leads to conflicting interpretations, play rulings, and even awkward wording in the text of the actual rules as they are changed or edited.

What other posters have told you in this thread is 100% correct. If Team A has an AP throw-in and the initial touch is kicking violation by a member of Team B, the result will be that Team A is awarded a new non-AP throw-in for the kicking violation and keeps the arrow for the next held ball since their attempt at executing an AP throw-in was not completed due to the illegal touch (kick).
This was all published extensively just two years ago as a rule change.
Unfortunately, someone with the NFHS then authored a contradictory interp for Team B violating during the AP throw-in by breaking the boundary plane. This person wrote that the subsequent throw-in remains an AP throw-in and the arrow changes upon its completion. Sad.
Anyway that's how this stuff evolves. It isn't perfect. You learn to sift through the errors over time.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Shooter14

OK great! Thank you so much. I see it now. I thought he was referring to 4.42.5 in the rule book.

So, you didn't read the Foreword in the case book?

[Shooter14]

Yes we searched through much of the casebook after our game but somehow overlooked that situation. I don't have it on me now but there was a situation in there that mirrored the rule book by talking about postponing the arrow. Once we saw that case play we must have focused in on only that case play when the answer was right there on another page for us to see. I have read the casebook but obviously some situations stick out and others you have to go back and review.

Like others have said, without the case play the wording in the rule book is not very clear. But with the case play it is very clear. Now I know with 100% certainty. Thanks again!

[Shooter14]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

So, you didn't read the Foreword in the case book?

If you are talking about me reading it yesterday when you referred to it, no I did not. I didn't have my case book on me, and thought you were referring to the rule book. I did not know about the X.Y.Z. for one, and X-Y-Z for the other. So learned two things yesterday. That's why I was confused on why you directed me there because the rule book wasn't helping me.

But you are right, the case book is clear cut, the exact play, no way to misinterpret.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Shooter14

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.

The AP throw-in hasn't ended, but it is replaced by a new, non-AP throw-in.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

The AP throw-in hasn't ended, but it is replaced by a new, non-AP throw-in.

Not according to the person who wrote the NFHS interps for the 2009-10 season.

SITUATION 3: During an alternating-possession throw-in by Team A, B1 breaks the plane of the boundary line. The official stops play. RULING: Team B is issued a warning for breaking the throw-in plane. Since the original alternating-possession throw-in had not ended, the ball is again awarded to Team A and remains an alternating-possession throw-in. Any type of further delay by Team B results in a team technical foul. (4-42-5; 4-47-1; 6-4-4; 7-6-4; 10-1-5c)

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Not according to the person who wrote the NFHS interps for the 2009-10 season.

SITUATION 3: During an alternating-possession throw-in by Team A, B1 breaks the plane of the boundary line. The official stops play. RULING: Team B is issued a warning for breaking the throw-in plane. Since the original alternating-possession throw-in had not ended, the ball is again awarded to Team A and remains an alternating-possession throw-in. Any type of further delay by Team B results in a team technical foul. (4-42-5; 4-47-1; 6-4-4; 7-6-4; 10-1-5c)

I don't have my books with me. Is a delay of game scenario considered a violation? This seems different to me than administering after an illegal touch (kicked ball) on an AP throw in.