Double Foul During AP Throw-in
 

Is this the correct ruling?

A4 is holding the ball for an A-P throw-in. Prior to releasing the ball, A2 and B1 are called for a double foul. How is play resumed and how is the A-P arrow affected?

Answer: A double foul results in no free throws and play is resumed at the point of interruption, which in this case is the throw-in to team A. When a foul is committed during an alternating-possession throw-in, it does not cause the alternating-possession throw-in to end and does not cause the team to lose the possession arrow. Therefore, team A shall retain the alternating-possession arrow after the ensuing throw-in ends.
(NFHS 4-36-2b, 4-42-5, 6-4-4, 6-4-5).

Disagree. The point of interruption IS the AP throw-in, so you just resume with Team A's AP throw-in.

Hell no!!!!!! The POI is the throw-in, but it's still an AP throw-in.

I will resume the AP throw-in.

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?

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)

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.

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.

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

So what have we decided here? Does POI supersede the premise that a foul during an AP throw-in postpones the arrow, or vice versa?

To be fair to the discussion, and without my book in front of me, I don't believe the rules (at least the NFHS rules) are clear on this, nor is there a case play or interp that I'm aware of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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 "they" say a foul does not change the arrow, they are referring to a single foul with a defined possession or FT penalty. In this case, it's still accurate, because you just return to the AP throw-in, and the end of that throw-in will see the arrow change.

Nothing is superceding anything here.

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.

Another thought...
 

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.

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.

Casebook Play 6.4.5 Situation A
 

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.

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.

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

This...
 

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).

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….

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."

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.

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.

Agree wholeheartedly.

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