[RandyBrown]

4-36-1 establishes double-foul causality for POI. 2b then anticipates POI application during a throw-in. 2c then deals with AP. Is it plausible to think that, after decades, the Committee has failed to realize that the original throw-in might be an APTI, or that if they did realize it, thought there no need to make explicit the possibility of an interrupted APTI in 2b and how to handle it? That is fantastical! There is no way they intended resumption of an interrupted APTI in 2b, and neglected to mention it. We can’t assume anything. If it isn’t written, it isn’t a rule.

6-1-2’s subnote specifically says that the procedure of an infraction negates and replaces the procedure/rule that was at work at the time of the infraction. Whether it be foul shots or inbounding--whatever that particular infraction’s normal procedure is gets followed--unless otherwise specified, of course. A double foul does not result in an APTI. 6-4-3g specifically states this. It says that if a double foul occurs, and the POI is such that there was no team control (as in our interrupted APTI), an APTI will not follow.