Double Foul During AP Throw-in

[Matt S.]

Gang,

There IS a casebook play that supports my interpretation. (my state association referred me to this)

6.4.5 SITUATION A:

Team A is awarded the ball for a throw-in under the alternating procedure. A1 commits a violation.

RULING: B's ball for a throw-in because of the violation. In addition, the possession arrow is reversed and is pointed towards B's basket. Team B will have the next throw-in opportunity under the alternating *procedure. Team A has lost its opportunity by virtue of the violation. A violation by Team A during an alternating-possession throw-in is the only way a team loses its turn under the procedure.

COMMENT: If a foul by either team occurs before an alternating-possession throw-in ends, the foul is penalized as required and play continues as it *normally would, but the possession arrow is not reversed. The same team will still have the arrow for the next alternating-possession throw-in. The arrow is reversed when an alternating-possession throw-in ends. (6-4-4)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Matt S.

Gang,

There IS a casebook play that supports my interpretation. (my state association referred me to this)

6.4.5 SITUATION A:

Team A is awarded the ball for a throw-in under the alternating procedure. A1 commits a violation.

RULING: B's ball for a throw-in because of the violation. In addition, the possession arrow is reversed and is pointed towards B's basket. Team B will have the next throw-in opportunity under the alternating *procedure. Team A has lost its opportunity by virtue of the violation. A violation by Team A during an alternating-possession throw-in is the only way a team loses its turn under the procedure.

COMMENT: If a foul by either team occurs before an alternating-possession throw-in ends, the foul is penalized as required and play continues as it *normally would, but the possession arrow is not reversed. The same team will still have the arrow for the next alternating-possession throw-in. The arrow is reversed when an alternating-possession throw-in ends. (6-4-4)

That has already been addressed in this thread. And it doesn't support ignoring the AP throw-in on a double foul.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Matt S.

Gang,

There IS a casebook play that supports my interpretation. (my state association referred me to this)



COMMENT: If a foul by either team occurs before an alternating-possession throw-in ends, the foul is penalized as required and play continues as it *normally would, but the possession arrow is not reversed. The same team will still have the arrow for the next alternating-possession throw-in. The arrow is reversed when an alternating-possession throw-in ends. (6-4-4)

This play comment and the rule itself says a foul by EITHER team. That means one or the other. It does not mean BOTH as in a double foul. That case play doesn't support your interpretation. That rule does not apply to double foul situations.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigCat

This play comment and the rule itself says a foul by EITHER team. That means one or the other. It does not mean BOTH as in a double foul. That case play doesn't support your interpretation. That rule does not apply to double foul situations.

It depends on whether the writers meant "either" in the inclusive sense or the exclusive sense. I think it would be dangerous to assume either (ha!) way.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It depends on whether the writers meant "either" in the inclusive sense or the exclusive sense. I think it would be dangerous to assume either (ha!) way.

Do you mean that in the inclusive or exclusive sense???

[Matt S.]

This was also included in the reply I rec'd from the state:

Play: A1 and B2 are called for a held ball near the sideline in team A’s frontcourt, and the possession arrow is in team A’s favor. While A1 has the ball at his or her disposal for the throw-in, A4 and B5 are called for a double foul in the lane area. How and where is play resumed, and is the possession arrow switched? Ruling: When a double foul is committed, play is resumed at the point of interruption with a throw-in to the team that was in team control at the out-of-bounds spot nearest to where the ball was located when the double foul occurred. Team A was in team control during the throw-in when the double foul occurred, so play shall resume with a throw-in to team A at the spot of the original throw-in. This throw-in is not another alternating-possession throw-in. The alternating-possession arrow will remain with team A following the throw-in because the alternating-possession arrow is not reversed when either or both teams commit a foul before the alternating-possession throw-in ends (NFHS 4-36-2a, 6-4-5, 10-6 Pen. 1c; NCAA 4-28.1.d, 6-3.8, 10-1 Pen. e).

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Matt S.

This was also included in the reply I rec'd from the state:

. This throw-in is not another alternating-possession throw-in.

We have an AP throw in. We have a double foul during the throw in. They don't lose the arrow at that moment because of the foul. ok. fine. But a double foul sends us to the POI. Why is the second throw in not an AP throw in?

If we had a made basket and team A had the ball for an end line throw in, then double foul, would we report and then give A end line throw in where they can run or would we make it a spot throw in?

As we have said, after a double foul you return to what you were doing before….I'm not sure on what basis they say the next throw in is not AP.

I'm getting another headache….

[UNIgiantslayers]

I suppose if you have guidance from your state association on this exact scenario, then follow what they say. Those of us who are not in a state that has clarified are stuck trying to justify after the fact if our assignors question the decision. Fortunately, there's a good bit of support for the decision to return to the AP throw in.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

I suppose if you have guidance from your state association on this exact scenario, then follow what they say. Those of us who are not in a state that has clarified are stuck trying to justify after the fact if our assignors question the decision. Fortunately, there's a good bit of support for the decision to return to the AP throw in.

For the once or twice in your career that you may see this, I'm going with this mindset. I have no desire to push the state, IAABO, or NFHS for a ruling because they might just get it "wrong."

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigCat

As we have said, after a double foul you return to what you were doing before

While that's a good guideline (and maybe it's what the rule *should say*), it isn't exactly what the rule says. It awards the ball to the team in control; it doesn't "return to the throw-in that was in process."

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

While that's a good guideline (and maybe it's what the rule *should say*), it isn't exactly what the rule says. It awards the ball to the team in control; it doesn't "return to the throw-in that was in process."

I think it should be "understood." Here's why, If a ball goes through net and two players get double T, the POI is an endline throw in--running. If A1 picks up the ball after it goes through the net, then we have double foul are you/we going to give a spot throw in? Or allow them to run after reporting the foul?

I went through all the stuff about the poi rule not saying return to same throw in. I decided it just doesnt make sense not to return to same throw in.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

While that's a good guideline (and maybe it's what the rule *should say*), it isn't exactly what the rule says. It awards the ball to the team in control; it doesn't "return to the throw-in that was in process."

The rule actually says (from 4-36-2):

b. A free throw or a throw-in when the interruption occurred during this activity or if a team is entitled to such.

The rule equates "during this activity" and "entitled to such". If we have a made basket followed by a dead ball double technical, the ensuing throw-in is anywhere along the end line, correct? If we have a made basket, ball at disposal, double foul/technical, the ensuing throw-in is anywhere along the end line, correct? If we have a held ball, followed immediately by a double technical, one team would be still be "entitled" to an AP throw-in, correct? So, AP throw-in in progress, double foul/technical, now all of a sudden we're changing the logic?

The rule does not differentiate a double foul that occurs during a throw-in from a double foul that occurs before a throw-in.

The case play reads:

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 point of interruption would be a throw-in by Team A. (4-36-2b; 10 Penalty 1c)


So I'm returning to the throw-in that the team was entitled to AT THE POINT OF INTERRUPTION, whether it be running the end line or an AP throw-in.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by Adam

... I have no desire to push the state, IAABO or NFHS for a ruling because they might just get it "wrong."

Agree wholeheartedly.

We've already seen evidence of it in this very thread (WIAA apparently).