Snaq:
First of all, this may seem petty
Tell me how to do it.
Note rule 7-5-7b does not state a team retains the privelege following an IW. Note the first sentence of the case play states, "the ball is put in play at the point of interruption." Everything else that follows shows how to determine the POI with different examples. Note also that case 7.5.3 does not reference rule 7-5, it references 4-36, though.
And, . . .? You haven't made an argument. All you have done, here, is restate the book. My argument
presupposes your "notes," and you leave my argument untouched. You have to make a counter-argument and/or dismantle mine. Do you disagree that CB 7.5.3(d) is materially identical to your situation, for example?
CB 7.5.3 is an interpretation of Rule 7, Section 5. Its very existence is a reference to it.
Look, the only rule you need for this IW is 4-36-2b. It's resumed with a throw-in for the team that was in the middle of their throw-in.
You are struggling to hold on to what you read in to 4-36-2b at the beginning of this thread, by using an anolgy to inadvertent whistle. The books treat them differently, I say. I also say you ignore my argument, and can make none of your own, because you are blinded by your original conception of this matter. Let go. Drink the Federation cool-aid. Let the rules as written guide you to the truth.
The question is, are you doing an APTI (because that's what they were doing when the whistle blew) or a "standard" TI (because it just says "throw-in") in the rule.
As usual, you ignore my answer, and my argument. 4-36-2c is staring you in the face, but you only have eyes for 2b.