When do we not reverse the AP arrow?
 

We know that the AP arrow is reversed when an AP throw-in ends. So what are some possible scenarios where an AP throw-in doesn't end and so we don't reverse the AP arrow?

The most obvious situation is when a foul occurs during the throw-in. Certainly a smart coach could leverage this to his advantage. A held ball occurs with 0.9 seconds left in a period. Team A, entitled to the ensuing AP throw-in, commits a TC foul during the throw-in. Arrow stays with A, and they get the AP throw-in to start the next period, which will certainly be more valuable than the AP throw-in with fractions of a second left.

Another situation would be a violation by B during the throw-in. Something straight-forward like swinging elbows by B during the throw-in isn't hard to figure out. But what about a boundary-plane violation and subsequent warning for delay? Certainly this would terminate (but not end) the AP throw-in and award a new designated-spot throw-in to A, leaving the arrow with A.

What if B kicks the passed ball before the AP throw-in has previously ended? This one is confusing to me. The throw-in ends when the passed ball touches or is legally touched by another player inbounds. Why are "touches" and "legally touched by" both listed? My only thought is that there is supposed to be a distinction between the ball touching a player and a player touching the ball. In the case of B kicking the passed ball, the ball is touched by another player inbounds, but the touching was not legal. Did the AP throw-in end? Strictly speaking, the passed ball touched a player inbounds so you could certainly say that it has, but that would make "legally touched by" redundant. I think the intent here is that A keep the arrow and get a new designated-spot throw-in.

Can anyone provide some clarity here? Are there any other situations where the arrow would not reverse following the start of an AP throw-in? Any stories regarding situations like this?

If a coach wants to waste a foul in order to gain a possession at the start of the next quarter, that's their prerogative. Depending upon where that foul takes place there's also the possibility that coach's team could give up a basket with 0.9 remaining.


An AP - or any other throw-in - ends, in part, when the throw-in team violates. As you said, if B violates the AP throw-in isn't over. In this instance the replacement throw-in takes place immediately.


You need "touched" and "legally touched" because it effects the requirements placed on the team making the throw-in. Part of NFHS 7-6-2 reads: "The throw-in pass shall touch another player (inbounds or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched." If the throw-in touches another player then Team A has met that requirement. However if the ball isn't touched legally (e.g., someone kicks or punches it), the throw-in isn't over.

There are a few Case Book plays detailing that the arrow is not reversed on a kicked throw-in pass.

If Team B violates, the new throw-in is now for the violation and not the held ball, so there would be no reversing of the arrow. Most people don't know this and the NFHS even incorrectly issued an interp a few years ago stating that the new throw-in remained an AP throw-in. :(

The explanation in Case Book 4.42.5 is helpful: COMMENT: The kicking violation ends the alternating-possession throw-in and as a result, a non-alternating-possession throw-in is administered. When the ball is legally touched on the subsequent throw-in following the kicking violation, the arrow is not changed and shall remain with Team A.

I also find Rules Book 6-4-5 to be instructive: . . .The opportunity to make an alternating-possession throw-in is lost if the throw-in team violates. If either team fouls during an alternating-possession throw-in, it does not cause the throw-in team to lose the possession arrow. If an opponent commits a violation during the throw-in, the possession arrow is postponed.

(I find the word "postponed" to be especially helpful, in understasnding the situation addressed in this thread.)

Case Book 6.4.5 SITUATION A COMMENT has similar wording.

Don't know if your fishing for an answer but this exact scenario is one of the questions on the 2nd rules test in Texas(to determine play-off eligibility). Do not reset AP arrow!

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?

Read JetMetFan's response above.

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"

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.

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?

No.

I hope that is clear enough.

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.

Ok thank you guys!

Before I give it up, does page 48, Art. 5 mean anything to anyone?

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

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….

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?

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?

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!!??

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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!

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.

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.

No, it's not a violation.

it seems different to me too, but breaking the plane by defense is a violation in 9. they go on to say that the first violation of the plane is a delay of game warning. (dont say anything else) earlier in the book it talks about it being an administrative procedure.

it is different, because there's a warning, but probably not different enough to say the next throw in is the continuation of the AP.

Interesting. I didn't see the conflict at first but now I see it.

i just dont think they think through or have somebody at nfhs that thinks about everything. they are asked about a specific situation and then,through a tunnel lense, give an interpretation without remembering/knowing/considering what they have already said in other places...

It most certainly is. Check rule 9.

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

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.

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

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...

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...."

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. :o