Double Foul During AP Throw-in

[BigCat]

I can think of many reasons why i think its wrong. The only thing i can think of to support it is that there really isnt anything that says after a double foul you go back to the same type of throw in you had when the double foul was committed. If there's a double foul during the throw in after a made basket, the next throw in is On the end line but they dont get to run the end line.

I dont agree with the ruling because when we have a double foul we always try to keep the status quo. Report both fouls and pick up where we left off. This ruling goes against that. A gets this throw in and the next ap one.

Where did this come from?

[Nevadaref]

I recall reading some NFHS Casebook rulings one of the previous seasons in which AP throw-ins were a concern because of kicking violations and the addition of the POI rule. My recollection is that a double foul immediately prior to or during an AP throw-in causes the officials to invoke the POI rule and the NFHS ruling was that an AP throw-in shall be awarded to the team with arrow.

It's late and I'll check my old Casebooks tomorrow, but these plays were right in the front.

Meanwhile, consider this current Casebook ruling:
4.34.2 SITUATION:
The third quarter ends; as the teams are heading to their respective benches, team members A1 and B1 verbally taunt one another.
RULING: Double technical foul charged to A1 and B1. During the intermission between quarters, all team members are bench personnel for the purpose of penalizing unsporting behavior. Both head coaches are indirectly charged with technical fouls and lose their coaching box privileges. Play will resume at the point of interruption, which is an alternating-possession arrow throw-in, to begin the fourth quarter. (10-4-1d Penalty; 10-5-1a)

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I recall reading some NFHS Casebook rulings one of the previous seasons in which AP throw-ins were a concern because of kicking violations and the addition of the POI rule. My recollection is that a double foul immediately prior to or during an AP throw-in causes the officials to invoke the POI rule and the NFHS ruling was that an AP throw-in shall be awarded to the team with arrow.

It's late and I'll check my old Casebooks tomorrow, but these plays were right in the front.

Meanwhile, consider this current Casebook ruling:
4.34.2 SITUATION:
The third quarter ends; as the teams are heading to their respective benches, team members A1 and B1 verbally taunt one another.
RULING: Double technical foul charged to A1 and B1. During the intermission between quarters, all team members are bench personnel for the purpose of penalizing unsporting behavior. Both head coaches are indirectly charged with technical fouls and lose their coaching box privileges. Play will resume at the point of interruption, which is an alternating-possession arrow throw-in, to begin the fourth quarter. (10-4-1d Penalty; 10-5-1a)

Id be interested to know if you find anything dealing with a double foul "during" the AP throw in. In the play above you've listed the ball is dead with no team in control when the double Ts occur. In that situation you have to go to the arrow to determine who gets ball next.

In this play Bob set forth, team A has control during a throw in(yes its an AP). When the double foul occurs during a throw in, the POI rule, says the throw in for the double foul will be given to the team who had the original throw in. (We are not going to the arrow as in your example above because the double foul occurred during a throw in). The POI rule doesnt say you go back to the same "type" of throw in. It's as if they are saying the second throw in is for the double foul. I think this takes the language that a foul doesnt cause a team to lose the arrow too far but i think i see what the author of the play is trying to say.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Id be interested to know if you find anything dealing with a double foul "during" the AP throw in. In the play above you've listed the ball is dead with no team in control when the double Ts occur. In that situation you have to go to the arrow to determine who gets ball next.
...

You go to the AP arrow in the above referenced situation because the POI is an AP throw-in (beginning of 4th quarter), not because the ball was dead and there was no TC. The ball is dead and there is no TC after a made basket, but we wouldn't go to the arrow in that situation, we would resume with an end line throw-in by the team that didn't score.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You go to the AP arrow in the above referenced situation because the POI is an AP throw-in (beginning of 4th quarter), not because the ball was dead and there was no TC. The ball is dead and there is no TC after a made basket, but we wouldn't go to the arrow in that situation, we would resume with an end line throw-in by the team that didn't score.

Yes, I should have said in play Nevada cited we go to the arrow because it is the next thing to occur following the dead ball. Thx for pointing out my screw up

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Where did this come from?

Someone asked me the question (and he was questioning the play). I responded much as everyone here did.

I think he got it from RefMag.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by BigCat

... If there's a double foul during the throw-in after a made basket, the next throw-in is on the end line, but they don't get to run the endline ...

Ummm, they don't?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this post?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by ODog

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��

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

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….

[UNIgiantslayers]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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.

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