Double Foul During AP Throw-in

[OKREF]

The fouls happened during the AP throw in, I would say the POI is the AP throw in and play resumes with that. Wouldn't the arrow switch on the touching of the pass on the throw in? None of the requirements were met prior to the double fouls that would end the AP throw in.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by OKREF

The fouls happened during the AP throw in, I would say the POI is the AP throw in and play resumes with that. Wouldn't the arrow switch on the touching of the pass on the throw in? None of the requirements were met prior to the double fouls that would end the AP throw in.

When we have a foul "during" the ap throw in it, the throw in doesn't end either. The rule says the arrow isn't lost when either team fouls. The next throw in is for the foul. arrow stays. The play Bob mentioned seems to suggest that the throw in after the double foul is... the throw in for the double foul. It is given to team A because they had the ball for the throw in at the time of the fouls. It isn't an AP throwin because fouls don't affect the arrow.

I think that ruling just grasps on to the wording that fouls don't effect the arrow and doesn't consider the nature of double fouls. We report and go back to the situation we were in just before they occurred.

I havnt ever had this happen in a game so I'm not going to worry about it. I'd go back to the AP throw in if it ever happened. Bob's play did get me thinking about it though.

[Matt S.]

I believe the arrow would stay where it's at after the throw-in for the foul is complete...here's why:

1. 6-4-5 states that "If either team fouls during an alternating-possession throw-in, it does not cause the throw-in team to lose the possession arrow."

2. If there was merely a foul by the defense, you wouldn't change the arrow after the ensuing throw-in, right?

Team A had control for a throw-in (albeit an AP throw in), there was a double foul, which, by rule, does not cause the throw-in team to lose the arrow, and the POI is a throw in by team A, since they had control at the time of the double foul.

Bob--we should've spent some time on this one at Rock Valley!!!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Matt S.

I believe the arrow would stay where it's at after the throw-in for the foul is complete...here's why:

1. 6-4-5 states that "If either team fouls during an alternating-possession throw-in, it does not cause the throw-in team to lose the possession arrow."

2. If there was merely a foul by the defense, you wouldn't change the arrow after the ensuing throw-in, right?

Team A had control for a throw-in (albeit an AP throw in), there was a double foul, which, by rule, does not cause the throw-in team to lose the arrow, and the POI is a throw in by team A, since they had control at the time of the double foul.

Bob--we should've spent some time on this one at Rock Valley!!!

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.

[OKREF]

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?

[Matt S.]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Case book

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Matt S.

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

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

Originally Posted by Matt S.

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.

Ref Magazine is notorious for wrong rulings.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Matt S.

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.

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...

[BigCat]

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.

[Matt S.]

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

[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.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Matt S.

I believe the arrow would stay where it's at after the throw-in for the foul is complete...here's why:

1. 6-4-5 states that "If either team fouls during an alternating-possession throw-in, it does not cause the throw-in team to lose the possession arrow."

2. If there was merely a foul by the defense, you wouldn't change the arrow after the ensuing throw-in, right?

Team A had control for a throw-in (albeit an AP throw in), there was a double foul, which, by rule, does not cause the throw-in team to lose the arrow, and the POI is a throw in by team A, since they had control at the time of the double foul.

Bob--we should've spent some time on this one at Rock Valley!!!

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. . .