1. i am trying to better understand the new rule regarding POI so here is my question. A1 is dribbling the ball in his frontcourt and is closely guarded by B1. B1 bats the ball out of bounds. during the dead ball period before the ball is placed at the disposal of team A, U1 calls a double technical on A2 and B2 for profanity. Ruling: since their is not team control druing the dead ball period, we use the AP arrow and put the ball in play at the division line opposite the table.

Correct or not?

2. is their situation where we would not put the ball in play at the division line with a double technical and the new POI rule?

1. According to rule 4-36-c An alternating possession throw in when the point of interruption is such that neither team is in control and no goal, infraction, nor end of quarter/ extra period is involved. In this case, I will say you will go to the AP your situation appears to meet the criteria.

2. I do not believe so.

1. There is an infraction involved -- an OOB violation. We know who is entitled to the ball at this point: Team A. So the POI is to give the ball to Team A for a designated spot throw-in.

2. The only time the ball will be put in play at midcourt after double T's is if that's where the ball was located when the T's occurred.

The Point of Interruption rule should be relatively easy to administer during a game. Ask yourself: "Self, who had the ball or who is supposed to have the ball next?" Give it to that team and just think of where the ball was or where the possession was to have started.

The only times that you may have an issue is during a shot or a loose ball. Generally speaking, you won't have a T during those instances - you'll probably wait a second or two before you call it. Not always, but most of the time.

I agree. But remember that during a shot, there is no team control; during a "loose ball", there usually is team control. So administration of double fouls will be different in those two situations. (No team control = AP arrow; team control = possession to team in control.)

True, but double personals while diving for a loose ball, or double personals while grappling for rebounding position (while not common) are not unheard of.

I just ask that nobody on this forum not be the guy to call this loose ball T. If we are good at game management, which I think all of us on here are, we will wait to see who gains possession before calling the T. I had the situation where a player was shooting a three and the defender just started giving me hell, because I missed an illegal screen, and I just waited to see who gained the rebound and T'ed him up. It was Sebastian Telfair by the way that I got to T up. If I wouldn't have waited we would have had a jump ball.

Um, weren't they talking about <b>double</b> technical fouls? :confused:

You must be referring to NCAA rules anyway, right? Under FED rules, the penalty is the same no matter when you call it. And under NCAA rules, the ball is gonna go to the POI anyway for a direct player T, isn't it? Do you really think that it's good game management" to wait? What if you waited and then the team of the player that got the T also got the rebound? Aren't you possibly rewarding that team with an extra possession that they don't deserve?

Are you referring to SEC principles here? Does the SEC really recommend ignoring the NCAA rule as written, and to then make up your own rule under the guise of "game management"? Just wondering.....most college supervisors I've talked to don't really like it when their officials don't follow the rules as written. It's kinda hard to explain these cases to the coach that's asking them about the call. In this case, it's called "giving someone an extra advantage not intended by the rules". That concept is kinda frowned on in some leagues.

Jmo, but you're better off just calling the game by the rules sometimes.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 28th, 2005 at 01:48 AM]

I promise not to be the <i><b> guy </i></b> to call this loose ball T.
Never.
Not me.
No way.

Jurassic what do you mean "not following the rules" is it not ok to wait to see who gains control of the ball before you call a T. Where in the rulebook is the wrong.

I think he is saying that it doesn't matter if you call a single T during a loose ball or after someone gets possesion. Under FED rules it will be ball at the division line in both cases-so just call it.

If it is a DOUBLE T then you go POI.

Did you read my amended response above?

What rule set are you using? And what is the pertinent rule in that ruleset as to calling a direct player T when neither team is in possession versus waiting to call the T until a team does gain possession?

You tell me.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 28th, 2005 at 02:11 AM]

And, under NCAA rules, for a single direct player T- which is what RefTN is talking about, you go to the POI also, I believe.

My bad I just misread it. Jurassic if the defender is the player I am going to T up, then if the defense rebounds I T immediately. If it is the offense that rebounds and is going right back up for a shot, I will wait till they score. In college, I believe, if you don't wait you have to go the AP and that is ridiculous when you can just wait to see who gets possession, then T. In the NBA if you don't wait, you have a jump ball at the nearest circle, which again is ridiculous. In my eyes it is good game management.

As far as the double T goes, I would wait to see who gets the ball here as well because once again you would have to go to the AP, oh wait I guess with the way the team control rule is written you could just give it back to the team who last had control of it which would be horrible. You're not making it fair to the team who was on defense, but had a legitimate chance at a steal.

There is no way anyone on this forum is going to agree with me on this but here goes:

The NBA has two different types of control of the ball: team control and team possession. It is in team control until the ball is deflected by the defense. Once it is deflected there is no team control, but there is still team possession. I personally like this, because if you give a technical during a loose ball and it was last in the possession of team A, and the team possession rule was not in there then the ball would go to the team who last had possession instead of fairly going to the jump ball. If you let one team establish possession and then call the T, you can give the ball to the right team without having the jump ball.

1) That's called "making up your own rules". Good luck to that. We disagree.

2) Again, you're making up your own rules. Again, good luck trying to explain that to a supervisor who's gotta give an explanation of your actions to an irate coach. Also again, we certainly do disagree.

3)A loose ball deflected by the defense remains in team control of the last team to have had player control under both FED and NCAA rulesets too. It's a very big mistake, imo, to try and apply NBA concepts to other rulesets.

Part 1: Round to JR
Part 2: Round to JR
Part 3: Round to JR



Go, JR, go! :)

Aw geeze, it ain't really a fight, Nevada. Just a philosophy difference. :)

What about the example in the rulebook where a coach is going crazy right when the defense gets a steal and goes on a breakaway, are we supposed to call a T right then or wait till the play is complete? In this respect we are supposed to wait for the play to finish and then assess the penalty.

I am not making up my own rules, I am just waiting for the play to develop and finish so I can assess the penalty. But there are a lot of different philosophies on this board and you at least have to respect them all. Good debate. Keep it coming.

10.4.1 has the situation where the T is delayed until the result of the play. In the situation, it would give an advantage to the defense to call the T immediately, so there is some justification for holding the whistle.

My question, however, ball is in the air on a try, and double foul is called, and it goes in. I have heard enforce the double foul, and give it to the scored upon team for an endline throw in, as after a made basket. I have also heard, since the foul occurred during a period of no team control, whatever the result of the try, you go to the AP arrow.

Frank, by rule, you go to the arrow when "the point of interruption is such that neither team is in control and no goal, infraction, nor end of quarter/ extra period is involved.

In your case, there is a goal involved. Since we know without doubt who would've gotten the ball when we interrupted the game, that's who we give it to. Team B's ball anywhere along the endline.

I asked this in another thread that died, there were no responses. Hopefully this question won't kill this thread also.

Team B scores a basket and A1 takes the ball for an inbounds pass. A2 and B2 commit a double foul 1) Before A1 releases the ball on an inbounds pass; or, 2) After A1 releases the inbounds pass (the foul occurs as the ball is crossing mid court - does location matter of the non-touched in bounds pass matter?) but before it is touched inbounds.

Assuming Team A retains the ball, does A1 still get to run the base line if the ensuing throwin is along the endline?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ref in PA
[B]I asked this in another thread that died, there were no responses. Hopefully this question won't kill this thread also.

Team B scores a basket and A1 takes the ball for an inbounds pass. A2 and B2 commit a double foul 1) Before A1 releases the ball on an inbounds pass; or, 2) After A1 releases the inbounds pass (the foul occurs as the ball is crossing mid court - does location matter of the non-touched in bounds pass matter?) but before it is touched inbounds.

Assuming Team A retains the ball, does A1 still get to run the base line if the ensuing throwin is along the endline?

designated spot throw-in

Why?

Aren't you a female? The correct word would be "gal" not guy, right?

And why would you promise? I thought an official should be neutral without any predetermined calls that may favor one team or another. What about integrity and applying NFHS rules with good judgments?

I'm guessin' you missed the bold type. She will NEVER be the guy making that call. Now, maybe she'll be the gal making that call, but there's NO WAY she'll be the guy making that call. ;)

Don't worry Juulie - not all your jokes go thud.

The acts being a live ball foul kills the play which in turn you go with designated spot throw-in.

Well, the reason I'm asking is not necessarily to be a smart-a$$, (although some have told me I do a good job of it...), but doesn't 7-5-7 say the non-scoring team retains the right of a baseline throw-in if the scoring team commits a foul or violation close to that baseline? However, it seems to make sense that the team making the throw-in also committed a foul, so why shouldn't they lose the right to run the baseline?

If the fouls occured way out on the court, then I can see the spot throw-in nearest to the fouls. But if the throw-in will be on the same baseline by the same team, what makes them lose the baseline?

R7-5-7 sez that the non-scoring team retains the right to run the baseline only if the scoring team commits a <b>common</b> foul. A double personal foul is <b>not</b> a common foul.

R7-5-9 is the relevant rule. Play is resumed at the POI.The POI is covered under R4-36-2(a)-- the team that was in control gets a throw-in at the <b>spot</b> nearest to where the ball was located when the double foul occurred.

But, there is no team control during a throw-in, right? So POI wouldn't apply?

Sorry- shoulda said R4-36-2(b)-- "Play shall be resumed by a free throw or <b>a throw-in</b> when the stoppage occurred <b>during</b> this activity or if a team is entitled to such".

In my defense, I'm still in shock that a basketball official-- any basketball official-- didn't know what a brownpop was.

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 <b>common</b> 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! :)