In the case of a single foul against the offense, the throw-in has not ended but the ensuing throw-in is by Team B, so the AP arrow doesn't change. In the case of a single foul against the defense, the throw-in has not ended, so the ensuing throw-in is for foul against the defense and is no longer an AP throw-in, so the arrow does not change.

In the case of a double foul, the AP throw-in has not ended, and we go to the point of interruption, which is the AP throw-in by the offense.

Case book

4.19.8 Situation F: A1 releases the ball on a throw-in, and before it is legally touched A2 and B2 commit fouls against each other.

Ruling: When a double foul occurs, play is resumed at the point of interruption. Since team A's throw-in had not ended, the POI would be a throw in by team A.

The POI is the previous throw in, just so happens in the our play, it was an AP throw in which hadn't ended. The arrow should change to team B when the throw in has ended. Why would we penalize team B and take the arrow away?

I don't see it as us penalizing Team B... they committed a foul.

That said, I do believe this was in Referee Magazine last winter...and I believe the interpretation I've shared was what was mentioned (but I no longer have the issue in hand).

I will certainly bring this up in my association meeting tomorrow night.

Team A committed a foul also, yet you are rewarding them with the ball AND keeping the AP arrow.

Ref Magazine is notorious for wrong rulings.

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.

I think its one thing to bring it up here. I personally wouldnt bring it up at a general meeting because it is just likely to confuse people. Or you run the risk of something like this, that doesnt happen much if ever, dominate your meeting...

Wiaa
 

I'm going to contact my state association and share this thread... we'll see what they say.

Double fouls, though atypical, are not exceedingly rare. I could certainly see this situation happening.

I would not want to avoid using the double foul tool from my tool belt just because I was uncertain of the subsequent penalty application.

Straight POI seems like the more logical outcome here, but this is my opinion and I look forward to any official interpretations that come out of this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ummm, they don't?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this post?

Well, you probably understand it. I'm the one who probably doesn't. I have been trying to rationalize The play Bob mentioned. Given myself a headache....thinking too much but also...not enough. It happens��

Double foul on a play leading to a made basket: B gets to run the end line.

That's further evidence that the entire point of POI on double fouls was to, as best as we can, "pick up where we left off" in the game. The idea is not to penalize either team more than just the additional personal and team fouls.

In that vein, I'm returning to the same type of throw in that was interrupted by the double foul.

Yes, it is clear to me that you return to the same type of throw in you are conducting when the double foul occurred. It's also clear to me now that in the play Bob mentioned, the authors are simply relying on 6-4-5 and saying that because there were fouls the arrow doesn't change.

6-4-5, though, says the arrow is not lost if EITHER team fouls during the AP throw in. Either is "one or the other." We have BOTH in that play so 6-4-5 doesn't apply. a little more concentration and i would have said this a lot sooner….:(

So consensus is that you return to the AP throw in? I wonder what NFHS would say, although I think the reasoning displayed in this thread is pretty spot on.

With apologies to Dickens, If the rule means that,the rule is a ass - a idiot.

A double foul should give neither team an advantage. If A gets the TI and the arrow, it gains an advantage from the double foul occurring: an extra throw in. While it appears that a hyper-technical reading could get one there, it makes no sense. Certainly there are correct interpretations that don't really make sense, but lack of sense is certainly worth considering as part of the parsing. . .

Both Or Either ???
 

Same reasoning we came up with in a Refresher Exam study session last night.