Double Foul on Alternating Poss'n Throw-in

[Da Official]

Anyone wants to take a stab at this?

Double Foul on Throw-in

A1 has the ball at his/her disposal for an alternating-possession throw-in. Prior to A1 releasing the ball, A2 and B1 are called for a double foul. How is play resumed? How is the alternating-possession arrow affected?

[Shooter14]

Point of Interruption. A will have the ball for a throw in.

That correct?

[Da Official]

What about the arrow?

[paulsonj72]

Originally Posted by Da Official

What about the arrow?

My understanding of the arrow is since we go bak to the point of interruption the arrow will change upon the whistle starting the 5 count for the alternating possession throw in after the double foul

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by paulsonj72

My understanding of the arrow is since we go bak to the point of interruption the arrow will change upon the whistle starting the 5 count for the alternating possession throw in after the double foul

The POI is the AP throw-in.

The arrow changes just like on any other AP throw-in -- when the AP throw-in ends or when the inbounding team violates (and they might have changed the definition so that last part is redundant).

[OKREF]

A ball, arrow stays the same

[Da Official]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The POI is the AP throw-in.

The arrow changes just like on any other AP throw-in -- when the AP throw-in ends or when the inbounding team violates (and they might have changed the definition so that last part is redundant).

I agree 100% with Bob....unfortunately it is not the answer given by (I won't say).....Here was the answer given (the part I don't agree with is in BOLD). I don't claim to know everything so can anyone provide support as to why this could be correct?:


Ruling
A double foul results in no free throws and play is resumed at the point of interruption; which in this case is the throw-in by team A. When a foul is committed during an alternating possession throw-in, it does not cause the alternating-possession to end and does not cause the team to lose the possession arrow. Therefore team A shall retain the alternating-possession arrow after the ensuing throw-in ends. 4-36-2b, 4-42-5, 6-4-4, 6-4-5

[crosscountry55]

+1. Had there been a foul that did not result in POI resumption, then the AP procedure would indeed be postponed. But this is a double foul; the ruling's second sentence is missing that critical distinction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Fouls do not change any AP Arrow situation if I am not mistaken. I will have to look this up again to be sure.

Peace

[Dave9819]

Double foul results in play being resumed at POI.

POI = AP throw-in.

Upon completion of the AP throw-in, arrow will be switched.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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]

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.