[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

The rule is also very specific that we return to the POI on a double foul.

The wording of 7-5-7 does not read at all on the rules related to how we handle double fouls.

Okay, Dan. So, maybe you're right. After an exhaustive research effort, including an inter-library loan from MTD's attic, and some delightfully mind-expanding drugs , I must conclude that I can effectively argue both sides of the issue.

7-5-7 either excludes the possibility of retaining the privilege of running the baseline for non-common fouls, or it only addresses the very narrow topic of retaining the privilege after a common foul by the scoring team and is irrelevant to and thus silent on other types of fouls. It could be read either way.

Points for not retaining the run

• 7-5-7 specificially limits the privilege of retaining the run of the baseline to violations and common fouls committed by the scoring team. A double foul is not a common foul committed by the scoring team.
• 4-36, the definition of POI, makes no mention of running the baseline.
• The only non-common foul case for 7-5-7, an intentional or flagrant foul near the end line, results in a designated spot throw-in.
• The only case I can find that discusses double foul, POI, and running the end line, 4.19.8 SIT. C, does not address the throwing team retaining the privilege. It only says they get it initially. Otherwise the case book is silent on the matter.
• Over the past three years the Fed has continously tweaked the exact phrase in 7-5-7 in question. Last year, they restricted it to only common fouls and called it a clarification, meaning that's what they always intended.
• They tweaked 7-5-7 again this year, adding language addressing this exact situation (foul before the throw-in ends). But in light of the significant expansion of POI, they chose not to remove the common foul restriction.

Points for retaining the run

• That phrase in 7-5-7 is meant only to address the specific issue of the scoring team violating or fouling and ending the non-scoring team's right to run the end line.
• The phrase is necessary because otherwise 7-5-2 and 7-5-5 would force a spot throw-in.
• The changes in 7-5-7 marked as clarifications make it clear they are dealing very narrowly with this one tactic.
• The throw-in related remedies for other kinds of fouls are spelled out in the rest of 7-5 and pass without comment in 7-5-7, because they are actually unrelated this very narrowly-targeted phrase.
• The 7-5-7 case play involving the intentional or flagrant foul tells us that non-common fouls retain thier usual penalties.
• The usual penalty for a double foul is POI.
• 4-36-2-a, which addresses the "usual" case for POI clearly indicates a designated spot throw-in. However, 4-36-2-b, which covers our case of POI during an interrupted throw-in, does not indicate a designated spot throw-in.
• POI means just what it says. If a team had the right to run the baseline when the throw-in was interrupted, returning to the point of interruption means they have the right to run the baseline.
• 4.19.8 SIT. C tells us that POI includes the privilege of running the baseline in situations where it would normally exist.

Unless somebody can point out a fatal flaw in one of my lists, I think this one needs to go on Nevada's list of things we'd like the Fed to clarify.


[Edited by back in the saddle on Jan 21st, 2006 at 09:29 PM]