|
I'm rather late to chime in on this one, but that gave me a good opportunity to read all of the posts before responding.
The problem isn't with anyone one this forum or Ref Mag this time, but rather with those who wrote the rule. They did a poor job specifying their desires.
I recalled our previous discussion of the DF during the end line throw-in before I saw it posted by ChuckElias. The situation was the same there. The NFHS rule clearly states that it is a designated-spot throw-in unless a common foul occurred and a DF is NOT a common foul. The case play querry and response sent to the NFHS committee member and answered by Mark Struckhoff went directly against the written rule, so obviously the committee intended to simply restore the situation to as it was at the time of the DF. Too bad that's not how they wrote the rule.
I believe that we are having the same debate here with the AP throw-in. The NFHS committee may certainly have desired to restore the same circumstances as prior to the DF, but that is NOT what the text of the POI rule says as very astutely noted by Ref Mag and Scrapper. The strict text of the POI rule awards a new throw-in, which is not specified to be an AP throw-in to the team which was making the AP throw-in at the time of the DF.
People must understand that POI is not reverting to exactly what was happening in the game when it was stopped (although I concede that is the basic intent of the rule), but rather it is an administrative procedure that is followed to continue a game interrupted under certain circumstances with specific conditions set forth therein of exactly how to do that.
The bottom line is that once again we have detected an instance of the darn rule not saying what the committee wanted it to say because they didn't draft it well. The wording of the rule needs to be amended to specify that if the throw-in which was interrupted was an AP throw-in, then the ensuing throw-in is also an AP throw-in for that same team. A simple note would do it. (The same should be said for an end line throw-in.)
Lastly, to BNR and APG, please be careful with referencing the NCAA rules for an intentional personal foul during an end line throw-in. The ruling is NOT the same as that of the NFHS. The NCAA allows the retaining of the end line following the FTs while the NFHS does not due to a change about five seasons ago when the word "common" was added to 7-5-7 in the NFHS book. Personally, I thought it was a poor change and deprived the non-offending team of something. I think that the NCAA has it right.
|