Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
I'm just not sure why you think a different line of reasoning is required when the rule itself is very clear and basic. AP is one method, the last method, in the progression of the POI rule.
|
Case Play 4.19.8 Situation C
A1 drives for a try and jumps and releases the ball. Contact occurs between A1 and B1 after the release and before airborne shooter returns one foot to the floor. One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the other official calls a charging foul on A1. The try is (a) successful, or (b) not successful.
Ruling: Even though airborne shooter A1 committed a charging foul, it is not a player-control foul because the two fouls result in a double personal foul. The double foul does not cause the ball to become dead on the try. In (a), the goal is scored; play is resumed at the point of interruption, which is a throw-in for team B from anywhere along the end line. In (b), the point of interruption is a TRY IN FLIGHT; therefore the alternating-possession procedure is used.
The writer of the case book believes the POI is not the AP but the TRY IN FLIGHT!