When do we not reverse the AP arrow?

[La Rikardo]

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?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

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.

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.

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

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.

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.

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

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.

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.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

What if B kicks the passed ball before the AP throw-in has previously ended?

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!

[Shooter14]

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?

[Smitty]

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. 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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Shooter14

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?

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"

[Shooter14]

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.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Shooter14

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.

[Shooter14]

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?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Shooter14

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.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Shooter14

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?

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.

[Shooter14]

Ok thank you guys!

[Shooter14]

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