[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

He is, and he is correct that 2b is the applicable portion of the rule which applies as a throw-in was in progress at the time of the stoppage. That's exactly how the rule reads and its intent. The only issue that I have with the text of the rule is that it does not specify that the AP status of the throw-in or the end line running ability of the throw-in is retained.
Part 2c is NOT the proper portion of the POI rule to apply when there is a throw-in or FT in progress or due for a team and a stoppage of the kind listed in the POI rule occurs.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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 concur with his analogy. Since the text of the rule in 2b only says throw-in and not AP throw-in or end line throw-in, if we are going to revert for a specific type in one situation, then we need to revert to the type of throw-in in the other as well.
The problem is not that of Snaqs or Bob Jenkins, but rather that of the NFHS rules writers who failed to consider this small point. Snaqs and Bob are applying the correct portion of the rule 2b. It is the ONLY portion of the rule which applies during a FT or throw-in or when such activity is due to either team. You wish to apply 2c, but that portion isn't for when throw-in or FT activity was occurring or about to occur when the stoppage took place, so it cannot be applied.
My only issue with the text of the NFHS rule is that under 2b the drafters failed to consider what to do if the POI rule needs to be applied during an AP throw-in or an end line running throw-in as opposed to during just a normal designated-spot throw-in? They failed to provide a detailed instruction whether the throw-in status is retained or not.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

2b is the ONLY portion of the POI rule to use or to refer to for the posed situations. 2a and 2c DO NOT APPLY. You must learn that. There is no argument to this point.
I have agreed that the text of the rule doesn't lend itself to awarding either an APTI following a DF or an IW, but that is what experience on the court and with the NFHS rules committee members is telling us to do. If I had to pick simply from the text of the POI rule, then it would be a normal designated-spot throw-in. Thankfully, as an experienced HS official, I can draw on a bit more than is directly in the book. That is what BNR is doing as well. The difference between us is that I admit that the rule as written doesn't lend itself to awarding other than a normal throw-in.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

All of my statements which you have just quoted pertain to my opinion that the NFHS rule writers failed to specify that whatever throw-in status is retained when the POI rule is applied. My comments do not pertain to the hierarchy inherent in Article 2 of the POI rule. The hierarchy is iron-clad. It is there and must be there for the rule to make sense. Otherwise, one could ALWAYS award and APTI when applying the POI rule. That is NOT what the intent of having the rule is. That is how the game was prior to the committee writing and instituting the rule. The whole reason that they did so was to change how the administration was.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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?

2c would never eliminate itself as it is written to apply to all situations not covered by 2a and 2b. Also, as I just wrote above, 2c used to be the way to resume the game prior to the NFHS instituting the POI rule, the concept of which was taken from the NCAA ranks.
If you started with 2c, you would be forced to say that it applies to the given situation on the court and resume with an APTI every time. So the scrambling is wrong and a, b, c are ordered and the rule must be applied in that specific stepwise process.
The rulings for several of the Case Book plays would change. For example, Team A releases a try for goal. While the ball is in flight, B3 and A3 commit a double personal foul. The try is successful. How does the game resume? The Case Book tells us that Team B gets a throw-in and MAY RUN THE END LINE. If we used your scramble method, we could just as well award an APTI to whichever team the arrow favors. Not the same outcome!

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

Yes, an APTI is used as a last resort when there is no other way to determine possession. That is why it is listed LAST as 2c following the other two steps, namely team control or throw-in/FT in progress or pending. If you wish to see it as a fairness mechanism, then that is fine, but it is the final step, not the first on the checklist.