|
The ruling is indeed incorrect, but I can understand why someone would attempt to justify it. If one looks just at the actual text of the POI rule, there is nothing to justify giving an AP throw-in in the presented situation. I only know to do that because there is an old play ruling which says to do so.
The rule just says to award the team a throw-in.
The POI rule is a process for resuming the game after specific stoppages, it provides a throw-in to a specific team in parts a and b of the rule and an AP-throw-in in part c. People tend to think of the POI as picking up where the game left off, but while that is true in spirit, it is not strictly correct from a rules standpoint.
Part b of the POI rule needs an additional phrase clarifying that the throw-in or FT awarded to the team shall occur under the same circumstances as the one taking place or about to take place when the stoppage in play happened.
For example, if A1 and B1 dive on the floor for a loose ball and create a heldball situation with the arrow favoring Team A, but then get upset with each other and each earn technical fouls which constitute a double technical foul, we know to report the fouls and continue the game with the AP throw-in, but by part b of the POI rule one could think that Team A should simply get a normal throw-in because that team was entitled to a throw-in when the double tech occurred.
|