RandyBrown wroteReff and APG: As an aside, notice that 2c excludes itself from relevance by its own wording. There is an infraction present in the play situation being discussed in this thread, the double-foul. (2c says that 2c does not apply if an infraction is involved in the play situation.)
All: Like Reff, I appreciate the cite, JR. Besides a definition, however, there are a few others on point, I think. 6-4-5 tells us that a foul by either team during an alternating-possession throw-in âdoes not cause the throw-in team to lose the possession arrowâ. CB 6.4.5 SitA explains that âA violation by team A during an alternating-possession thrown-in is the only way a team loses its turn under the procedure.â We could have free-throws coming up as a result of the infraction during the alternating-possession throw-in, or the other team could be inbounding because of a foul by team A. Simply put, team Aâs alternating-possession throw-in is over when the infraction occurs. A keeps the arrow, and we move on. (See below for authority.) Unless something subsequently creates a new alternating-possession throw-in for A, even if the consequence of the infraction, a double-foul, in our case, is team A inbounding the ball, again, the situation has reset, and it is now the normal throw-in that would result from the infraction that caused the interruption.
Although the alternating-possession throw-in is history, it did not âendâ, strictly speaking. 6-4-4 tells how an alternating-possession throw-in âendsâ: it ends as any throw-in ends. 4-42-5 enumerates the ways throw-ins end. A foul is not one of them. Therefore, a foul pre-empts the âendingâ of a throw-in, as defined by the book. Some of you are married to the idea that the âoriginalâ throw-in resumes, with all of its original attributes, following the infraction. I have not found a passage in the book that supports this, and have found ones that contradict it. The fact that the alternating-possession throw-in has not âendedâ in the formal sense of the bookâs meaning suggests that it, well . . ., has not ended, and that if circumstances work out, we go right back to it. But the books donât say that, they say the contrary. The passages I cite, read together, make it clear that the interruption caused by the infraction results in whatever would follow the interruption, normally. If it is new throw-in for A, it operates as it normally would following a double-foulâno alternating-possession attribute. Consider, if the infraction werenât a double-foul, free-throws may have resulted, or B may have been awarded the ball for inbounding if fouled by A. Clearly, the original alternating-possession throw-in is history in those situations, and nothing in the book carves out an exception for interruptions involving double-foul infractions that I can find. Scrapper was dead on.
This is all confirmed by 6-2âs subnote, and CB 6.4.5 SitA: âIf a foul by either team occurs before an alternating-possession throw-in ends, the foul is penalized as required and play continues as it normally would, but the possession arrow is not reversed. The same team will still have the arrow for the next alternating-possession throw-in. The arrow is reversed when an alternating-possession throw-in ends.â The next alternating-possession throw-in doesnât come until something new generates it. There is no resumption of Aâs original alternating-possession throw-in. We have moved on.
Referee Magazine is correct, as Scrapper was saying.
For what itâs worth, in BJâs play situation, it is not material that A1 has not yet released the throw-in. That particular condition turns on whether the ball has yet been legally touched inbounds, (CB 6.4.1 (b)).
