When do we not reverse the AP arrow?

[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.