point of interruption

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by M&M Guy

And a very valid defense it is.

So, back to the original question: does the team lose the baseline priviledge? If it does, then why? Isn't the team still "entitled to such"?

As R7-5-7 plainly sez that a team only retains the run-the-baseline privilege after a common foul occurs on the throw-in, then I'd haveta say it would now be a spot throw-in on the end line after any non-common foul(s)--which includes double fouls. Case book play 7.5.7SitD uses an intentional or flagrant foul committed near the end line to say the same thing---> spot throw-in even though the throw-in is returned to the end line.

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
As R7-5-7 plainly sez that a team only retains the run-the-baseline privilege after a common foul occurs on the throw-in, then I'd haveta say it would now be a spot throw-in on the end line after any non-common foul(s)--which includes double fouls. Case book play 7.5.7SitD uses an intentional or flagrant foul committed near the end line to say the same thing---> spot throw-in even though the throw-in is returned to the end line.

I saw that case play too, I guess the reason I wasn't sure it applied was because of the issue of free throws involved in that case play; the penalty for intentional or flagrant fouls is specific on free throws and then a spot throw-in. In our case there is only the double foul with no free throws.

I can live with the difference between common fouls and double fouls. In my mind it makes sense that the team should lose the baseline priviledge because it also did something "bad". I was just looking for a good rules justification.

Now I'm looking for a good justification for brownpop. Oh, yea, that's right - it's Thursday!