The Official Forum
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Double Foul on Alternating Poss'n Throw-in (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/100292-double-foul-alternating-possn-throw.html)

Nevadaref Tue Nov 03, 2015 08:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 968979)
That's only if you read 4-36.2b as narrowly as possible. It's still "a throw-in", but in this case, a specific type of throw-in. Also doesn't state whether or not it is a designated spot throw-in, but if a made basket was involved, we know it would be anywhere along the endline.
True, but the lack of specificity in the POI rule is what causes some confusion and people to issue rulings such as the one Da Official was given. :(

Camron Rust Tue Nov 03, 2015 08:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 968979)
That's only if you read 4-36.2b as narrowly as possible. It's still "a throw-in", but in this case, a specific type of throw-in. Also doesn't state whether or not it is a designated spot throw-in, but if a made basket was involved, we know it would be anywhere along the endline.
Agree....POI is exactly that, in its entirety. Resume with what you were otherwise doing.....ball in control of a team, they get it); throwin due, resume with that same throwin; FTs due, go with that, etc.

deecee Tue Nov 03, 2015 09:59pm
Last I knew there were only 2 ways to conclude an AP throw in.

1. The ball being touched legally during the throw in
2. The team with the throw in commits a violation

This doesn't satisfy either so we go back to the AP throw in as the POI.

Smitty Wed Nov 04, 2015 02:08pm
I won't be shy about the origin of this interpretation in the OP - this was sent out to our entire association from our official "rules interpreter" and I didn't think it was right when I first read it, but didn't think about it too much until I read this thread. I'm having a discussion with one of our other board members about this thread - he supports the ruling in the OP where the arrow would not change after the subsequent throw in ends after the double foul. The rules are not incredibly clear about this specific situation. They are focused on the line in 6-4.5 that states "If either team fouls during an AP throw-in, it does not cause the throw-in team to lose the possession arrow." While logically either team fouling includes both teams fouling, but I don't think a double foul applies since it results in POI, unlike any other type of foul.

bob jenkins Wed Nov 04, 2015 02:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smitty (Post 969032)
I won't be shy about the origin of this interpretation in the OP - this was sent out to our entire association from our official "rules interpreter" and I didn't think it was right when I first read it, but didn't think about it too much until I read this thread. I'm having a discussion with one of our other board members about this thread - he supports the ruling in the OP where the arrow would not change after the subsequent throw in ends after the double foul. The rules are not incredibly clear about this specific situation. They are focused on the line in 6-4.5 that states "If either team fouls during an AP throw-in, it does not cause the throw-in team to lose the possession arrow." While logically either team fouling includes both teams fouling, but I don't think a double foul applies since it results in POI, unlike any other type of foul.
A didn't lose the arrow because of the foul. A loses the arrow as a result of the subsequent AP throw in.

Da Official Wed Nov 04, 2015 02:44pm
It simply makes no logical sense to penalize Team B as a result of a DOUBLE foul (by not getting the arrow after the throw in ends)....but most people say officials are crazy to do what we do anyway. :D

Smitty Wed Nov 04, 2015 02:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 969036)
A didn't lose the arrow because of the foul. A loses the arrow as a result of the subsequent AP throw in.
Their argument is that the double foul causes the resulting throw-in to no longer be an AP throw-in, therefore A keeps the arrow. I believe that is a flawed argument.

Raymond Wed Nov 04, 2015 03:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smitty (Post 969038)
Their argument is that the double foul causes the resulting throw-in to no longer be an AP throw-in, therefore A keeps the arrow. I believe that is a flawed argument.
It's extremely flawed. The POI was an AP throw-in, that's the only reason Team A is getting the throw-in after the Double Foul.

Camron Rust Wed Nov 04, 2015 05:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 969041)
It's extremely flawed. The POI was an AP throw-in, that's the only reason Team A is getting the throw-in after the Double Foul.
Agree. POI is just that....back to what was happening when the double foul happened.....an AP throwin.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:08am.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1