Double Foul During AP Throw-in

[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."

[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).

[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.