Alternating Possession Debate

Refsmitty

Had a situation Tuesday - inbounds play - ball was kicked by defender before the ball legally touched player or court inbounds - therefore - throw end had not ended. My take is that by rule 4-42-5 the throw in team keeps the ball and the arrow - partner disagrees - what say you?

zm1283

Refsmitty wrote
Had a situation Tuesday - inbounds play - ball was kicked by defender before the ball legally touched player or court inbounds - therefore - throw end had not ended. My take is that by rule 4-42-5 the throw in team keeps the ball and the arrow - partner disagrees - what say you?

What was his reasoning? What did he say when you said the throw-in had not ended?

Refsmitty

He thought the throw in ended when touched by the defender - even if touched illegally.

Raymond

Smitty, I know you've been around here long enough to KNOW the answer to this one.

And it's not "what say you", it's "what does the rule book say". 😉

stiffler3492

Refsmitty wrote
He thought the throw in ended when touched by the defender - even if touched illegally.

Sounds like he's answered his own question. The throw in ends when the ball is LEGALLY touched inbounds. The ball was not legally touched inbounds. Team B violated by kicking it. A gets a new throw in and keeps the arrow.

zm1283

Refsmitty wrote
He thought the throw in ended when touched by the defender - even if touched illegally.

I'm not sure what to tell him then if he doesn't know when a throw-in ends.

Adam

Isn't there a case play on this?

zm1283

Snaqwells wrote
Isn't there a case play on this?

Yes. I don't have my books with me, but I have seen it before.

bob jenkins

zm1283 wrote
I'm not sure what to tell him then if he doesn't know when a throw-in ends.

Pull out the rule book and show it to him.

Refsmitty

You are correct BNR - but when a vet argues with you it sometimes creates some self doubt.

APG

Refsmitty wrote
Had a situation Tuesday - inbounds play - ball was kicked by defender before the ball legally touched player or court inbounds - therefore - throw end had not ended. My take is that by rule 4-42-5 the throw in team keeps the ball and the arrow - partner disagrees - what say you?

Case book play 4.42.5 is this exact play.

Raymond

Refsmitty wrote
You are correct BNR - but when a vet argues with you it sometimes creates some self doubt.

When a vet argues with me it usually reassures me that I'm right. 😀

bowlingref

I worked a jv boys game a couple years ago and stayed to watch a really varsity game worked by three veteran guys. Fourth quarter, illegal screen and the vets let the offenedd team shoot one and one. I tried to tell one of the vets from the end line that they were wrong, so did the furious coach. To no avail,both the coach and I lost. When I got home I sent all three a copy of the rule in a nice way and I got apologies from all three. 🙂

Welpe

Refsmitty wrote
You are correct BNR - but when a vet argues with you it sometimes creates some self doubt.

As I posted earlier today. Veteran official != official that knows the rules.

Adam

Welpe wrote
As I posted earlier today. Veteran official != official that knows the rules.

Maybe, but when they sound sure of themselves (which they usually do), they can sound convincing enough to create doubt.

BillyMac

AllPurposeGamer wrote
Case book play 4.42.5 is this exact play.

4.42.5 SITUATION: Team A is awarded an alternating-possession throw-in.
A1’s throw-in pass is illegally kicked by B2. RULING: As a result of B2’s kicking
violation, Team A is awarded a new throw-in at the designated spot nearest to
where the kicking violation (illegal touching) occurred. Since the alternating-possession
throw-in had not been contacted legally, the throw-in has not ended and
therefore, the arrow remains with Team A for the next alternating-possession
throw-in. 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 shall not be changed and shall remain with Team A.

Welpe

Snaqwells wrote
Maybe, but when they sound sure of themselves (which they usually do), they can sound convincing enough to create doubt.

I hear you. I guess I'm arrogant enough to not care about years of experience when I know the official is full of it. 🙂

Raymond

Snaqwells wrote
Maybe, but when they sound sure of themselves (which they usually do), they can sound convincing enough to create doubt.

That's never been enough to create doubt for me, even during my formative years in officiating. Only thing that would create doubt is a rule or case book citation, which in my dealings with "vets" at the HS level, always seems to be oddly missing from the conversations.

Adam

Welpe wrote
I hear you. I guess I'm arrogant enough to not care about years of experience when I know the official is full of it. 🙂

BadNewsRef wrote
That's never been enough to create doubt for me, even during my formative years in officiating. Only thing that would create doubt is a rule or case book citation, which in my dealings with "vets" at the HS level, always seems to be oddly missing from the conversations.

I'm with you. But I've been able to convince partners to do the wrong thing (my first few games, working MS in rural Iowa) and allow any player on the floor to shoot FTs for an injured shooter. Now, I usually soften the discussion with vets by saying something along the lines of, "I thought it was X, but you've got me curious," and proceed to open the book and find it.

BillyMac

Rookie officials have recently spent a lot of time with their heads buried in rulebooks, and casebooks, to prepare for the rookie exam. They are only required to know (with the exception of the "new" team control on a throwin backcourt rule) the most recent set of rules. A difficult, but not impossible task, and some do it quite well.

Veteran officials have been through years, and years, of rule changes, and casebook interpretation changes. Dozens of changes for most. Hundreds of changes for a few. Sometimes these changes can be just as confusing, or more confusing, than the original rules that they learned many, many, years ago.

I had a brand new official straighten me out with the "new" kicked ball on a throwin interpretation a few years ago during a freshman game. He was so new that he still had that new official smell. My response to him, "Thanks partner, nice job."