Quote:
Originally Posted by rwest
The term point of interruption means to resume play where the play was interrupted. Was the play interrupted duirng an AP Throw-in? No. It was interrupted during a shot attempt. The AP is just one way we make a dead ball live. It is the way we put a ball in play when there is no other way to do so. It is not the point of interruption. In this case we don't use the AP because the shot was good. If the shot had missed we go with the AP because we have no idea who would have got the rebound, not because the AP was the point of interruption. The POI was the shot attempt. What happens after determines how we put the ball in play. If the AP was the POI it wouldn't matter what happened with the shot. We would have gone with the AP Throw-in. But it does matter and that's why we have two different ways of putting the ball in play.
It is when the point of interruption can not be determined that we go with the AP. They are mutually exclusive.
|
Umm...what?
I'm looking at 4-36 right in front of me. The point of interruption is a method used to resume play. It'll either be resumed with:
1. Throw to team in control
2. Free throw or throw-in if play was stopped during such activity or if a team will be entitled to such activity.
3. Alternating possesion when a stopping occurs and there is no team control and there's no infraction, goal, or end of period/quarter.
So how is the AP not a POI? Unless you're trying to say that not all AP throw-ins are a result of having to use the POI?