This case is there for the purposes of demonstrating that a player still gets to run the endline after a made basket even if a occurred while the ball was in flight IF the spot happens to be on the endline. It is not there to specifiy the location of the throwin.

Actually for a DPF with a try in flight the location of the POI throw-in would be from where the shooter released the try for goal as BALL location determines the throw-in spot on a DPF, while PLAYER location is the determining factor for a single personal foul.

when we have a try in flight we have no team control. if the ball goes in it goes to other team for end line throw in as deecee mentioned. that is the obvious poi. if it is missed we go to the arrow as no obvious poi. throw in at ball location at time of double foul which would be where shooter let it go as you mentioned.thx

You're....welcome?

it's a habit. just as not using my shift key is a habit.....thx:)

No problem. :D

Peace

That is correct in terms of the ultimate outcome. I would only quibble a bit with the precision of your thinking process which got you there.

Namely under NFHS rules POI is NOT any particular point in the game. Some people think of it that way, but that is not correct and can get you into administrative trouble. POI is actually an administrative process for resuming the game with a throw-in based upon the certain circumstances under which play was halted. See the definition in Rule 4. As you certainly know, it does not apply for situations in which only a single foul is committed. Also you have noted rule 4-36-2a will not be used when there is a DPF while a try is in flight as there is no team control. Therefore, the made FG situation will come under 4-36-2b (Team B due an end line throw-in) and the missed FG try activates 4-36-2c (AP throw-in at ball location).

This is really a nice scenario to test an official's understanding of team control, ball location, player location, proper throw-in location, live/dead ball, and the POI process.

To be clear, I don't agree with BigCat's usage of "that is the obvious poi" and "no obvious poi." I don't believe that how obvious the situation is really has anything to do with the POI process from a rules perspective.

As this pertains to 4-36-2, I can provide examples which are obvious which fall under all three parts: a, b, and c.

For part a:
1. A1 is holding the ball near the division line when the lights go out in the gym. (seems obvious)
2. A1 has the ball batted away by B1 and both players are chasing after it in the backcourt when a double technical foul is called on A3 and B3. (Not obvious to most)

For part b:
3. A1 has the ball in the corner of the frontcourt and requests a time-out which the official grants. While heading to their benches A4 and B4 taunt each other and a DTF is charged. (seems obvious)

4. With 7 seconds remaining in the 2nd quarter A1 is administered a throw-in from a spot along his backcourt end line. To conserve time, A1 rolls the ball on the floor up the court. When the ball has just crossed the division line B2 and A2 commit a DPF while attempting to reach the ball, but before any player has touched it. (not obvious)

For part c:
5. The official tosses the ball into the air to begin an extra period of play and a toddler runs out onto the court causing an Umpire to blow to his whistle. (seems obvious)

6. A1 and B1 contest the opening jump ball and knock it near the sideline where A2 and B2 scramble for it with neither gaining control and they simultaneously knock it out of bounds. At this time the scorer alerts the Referee that each team has a player on the court with an incorrect number. (not obvious to most)

History Marches On ...
 

Sorry. My PDF casebook is from 2011-12. If anyone is aware of any newer versions online, let me know, it would be greatly appreciated.

I only used "no obvious poi" because that is the phrase used in the case book when there is an unsuccessful try involved. When it goes in I flipped it noting that that is the "obvious poi." Just using case book language. not personally saying something obvious/easy etc.

If you get time, run through the rules/case plays analysis that gets you to the point to say that the reason they are running the end line in 7.5.7E is because there was a made basket AND the spot of the foul happen to be on the end line. thx

The case play specifies the spot of the foul was the lower block. Which would mean the inbounds would be on the endline. You have to look at your chart for where the foul occurs and the relation to where we inbounds the ball. The simplest diagram is start at a point at the top of the three point arc and draw a straight line to each of the 2 intersecting points of the three point line to the endline.

Any foul under the line inbounds is on the endline. Above = sideline.

7.5.7E used to say the foul was near the block. It does not now. It simply says A3 commits a foul on B3. nothing more.

As far as where you take the ball inbounds..it is the inside area of the key and then a point from the "elbow" (where lane lines and FT line meet) to the dead corner. looks like a spaceship. anywhere within that area goes end line.

In which version, 2015-16?

I think this pretty much covers it...


The foul in question did happen before the throwin ended. It also effectively happened "after" the shot. The spot, if it happens to be on the endline, then allows the thrower to move.