|
DO NOT READ IF YOU WANT TO AVOID HEADACHE
Now we see a case play that they could have easily said the POI is another AP throw in. I am just thinking out loud now..something i shouldnt do..
The ways we put a ball back in play after a double foul:
1. If a team was in control we award a throw in to that team nearest to spot of where ball located.
2. If there is no control and the ball live--shot, we go to the arrow to put it in play.
3. If the ball is dead when the double fouls happen or alive such as during a shot that goes in, we will award a throw in based on what would happen next. Either and end line throw in if time remains on the clock, as BNR noted, or as in Nevada's play, the next thing was an AP throw in.
4.$$ If the double foul occurred during a throw in then the POI , 4-36-2b, is another throw in. It doesnt say the same type of throw in.
So, im not a fan of it, but it could very well be that if the double foul occurred during a throw in, no matter what the kind, the next throw in is just a throw in because of the double fouls.
That is the only way i can reconcile Bob's play and now the case play and the foul doesnt change the arrow rule. And...as i have said before i dont agree with that because it doesnt recognize the effect of a double foul. Bob's play could be wrong, the case play could have just omitted the AP language, it may be "understood" in 4-36-2b that we go back to the same type of throw in...and rule 6 may and should only apply to single foul situations.
I would go back to the AP throw in. The end for me. (Thinking out loud is never good...)
Ive given myself a headache.
|