When do we not reverse the AP arrow?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Smitty

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.

No, it's not a violation.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

No, it's not a violation.

It most certainly is. Check rule 9.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It most certainly is. Check rule 9.

9-2-10: The opponent(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her
person through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary-line plane until the
ball has been released on a throw-in pass. PENALTIES: (Art. 10)
1. The first violation of the throw-in boundary-line plane by an opponent(s) of
the thrower shall result in a team warning for delay being given (one delay
warning per team per game). The warning does not result in the loss of the
opportunity to move along the end line when and if applicable.
2. The second or additional violations will result in a technical foul assessed
to the offending team. See 10-1-5c Penalty.
3. If an opponent(s) reaches through the throw-in boundary-line plane and
touches or dislodges the ball while in possession of the thrower or being
passed to a teammate outside the boundary line (as in 7-5-7), a technical
foul shall be charged to the offender. No warning for delay required. See
10-3-10 Penalty.
4. If an opponent(s) contacts the thrower, an intentional personal foul shall
be charged to the offender. No warning for delay required.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The warning does not result in the loss of the opportunity to move along the end line when and if applicable.

At least the ruling regarding the arrow is consistent with this.

[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.