[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You are not correct here. The A, B, C order of the items is important. The POI rule is a three step process which an official must apply to the specific situations mentioned in the top portion of the rule to determine how to resume the game.
The first step is to determine if there was team control by either side. If so, then that team receives a throw-in at the nearest OOB spot to the location of the ball. That is Part A and that takes priority over the other two listings.
This is obvious too. You have a double foul while team A is dribbling near the division line. You apply Part A and stop. You don't consider using AP arrow as stated under Part C. There are even Case Book plays which instruct us on the administration and all of the rulings adhere to the A, B, C order of the POI rule.

Please understand that the intent of the committee is to use the AP arrow as a last resort when determining possession. If anything else (team control, a team due a throw-in or FT, a throw-in or FT was in progress) can be used, then that takes priority and possession is awarded based upon that action.

The arrow is only used when there is no reason to give one team the ball over the other, such as an unsuccessful try for goal and no one has yet obtained control of the rebound when the stoppage occurs. See the Case Book play on a DF when there is a try in flight and how to resume if it is successful or unsuccessful.

Nevada, you may have fallen into snarkless Snaq's trap. Here, I believe he is arguing that team A gets to keep the APTI that existed at the time of the IW because of 2b. His endgame is to use agreement with him on this to support his position regarding Bob Jenkins' situation--if 2b prescribes APTI when IW, then 2b prescribes APTI when DF. I say you may have fallen into his trap, because you seem to rely exclusively on the language of 2b back in post 94 when you discuss the APTI question. I believe you contradict yourself if you rely exclusively on 2b for your conclusion in 94, and then rely exclusively on 2b to say 2b prescribes an APTI in the case of an IW during an APTI.

Using your own words, I have to disagree with your assertion that an actual hierarchy exists in Article 2. I refer you back to your words in post 94: "Too bad that's not how they wrote the rule," ". . ., but that is NOT what the text of the POI rule says," and, "The strict text of the POI rule . . .." If the drafters indended a true hierarchy, we wouldn't be arguing about it--that's how they would have written the rule.

When Article 2 is read as a whole, in context with other rules and Case Book examples that relate to POI, I don't see a purpose to divining a hierarchy. The appropriate option presents itself based on the circumstances of the play situation and a simple process of elimination. Replace the identifying letters with bullets, or scramble the list's "order", and tell me if doing so changes the outcome of any of those Case Book plays you refer to. Using your DF example while dribbling, there is no need to begin with "a". One could begin with "b" or "c", and the result is still "a", because "b" and "c" eliminate themselves, do they not?

I agree with what you say regarding the definition of POI and how APTI fits into it. I don't rely on some hierarchy that is not stated in the text for that, however. Other rules and Case Book examples make it clear that the APTI component of the POI definition is a fairness mechanism, as it is used in the case of a held ball, or ball knocked OOB unseen by an official or by two opponents simultaneously.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm going to drop all the snark and just start dealing with the issue: now, let me ask these basic questions and we'll start from there.

Since you offer no answer or rebuttal to what I said where Nevada quotes me, I take it you want to "start" elsewhere, because you have no answer or rebuttal.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

APTI interrupted by an IW. How do you resume? You've stated before you're using 4-36-2c to go with an AP because there is no team control (TC), is that still your opinion?

My primary answer from Post 78: "Sounds like AP, to me. 7-5 doesn't cover it, as far as I can determine. The CB offers what I mentioned in Sitch 1, which together, seem to put such whistles into their own category--we're advised to treat them as though they didn't happen, to the extent possible." As far as I could find, there isn't one instance in the books where IW doesn't result in a resumption of play entailing everything that was in existence at the time of the IW, to the extent that is possible. Can you point me to one?

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Endline throwin interrupted by an IW. How do you resume? Are you going with 4-36-2c again?

Standard, non-AP, spot throw-in interrupted by an IW. How do you resume? 4-36-2c? If not, why not?

Same answer. The books seem to treat it the same as an official's TO--or any legally administered TO, I suppose.