Give me an example please.

[Kelvin green]

TAke a look at the owrding of b again it states

"play is resumed by a FT or throw-in when the stoppage occurred during this activity"

You were the one who pointed out this exact verbage. You cant have it both ways since each one of these is mentioned in the section.

There is nothing in there about time of release.

Now you are changing story ... If play is resumed by a FT when the stoppage occurred during that activity... then as long as it hapened during the activity then you use FT.... FT does not end on release it ends defintionally.. so any double foul occured during the FT is resumed by a FT based on the way you stated.... now you are making it up because that's not what the verbage states

You are absolutely right on the " The key difference is that a pass in flight retains team control while a try in flight, even a FT, does not."

Except that you are wrong when it comes to a throw-in because there is no team or player control during a throw in....thats a definition and so you cannot justify a thow-in pass being in team control no matter how hard you try.


Throwin starts when the ball is at the disposal of the player and ends when it touches a player inbounds. Where does it say Team Control??? never does.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Kelvin green
TAke a look at the owrding of b again it states

"play is resumed by a FT or throw-in when the stoppage occurred during this activity"

You were the one who pointed out this exact verbage. You cant have it both ways since each one of these is mentioned in the section.

There is nothing in there about time of release.

Ok, here's my thought on this "verbiage", which is an absolute disaster. I have to agree with Kelvin on that. I'm going to make a very nit-picky point and it may sound overly lawyer-ish (it depends on what the meaning of "is" is), but I'm going to hang my hat on the word "stoppage".

If a double foul occurs while a FT is in flight, then the whistle sounds during the FT, but the stoppage isn't until the FT goes in or misses. In other words, the stoppage isn't actually during the FT. The only time the stoppage (as opposed to the whistle) would occur during the FT is after the ball is at the shooter's disposal, but before s/he releases the try.

This allows us to say that when the stoppage occurs during the FT (which means that the it has to occur while the shooter still has the ball), we resume with a FT. But if the whistle sounds while the FT is in the air, the stoppage doesn't actually occur during the FT, so we aren't required to resume with a FT.

How's that?

[Kelvin green]

Chuck

I will buy that--- if we extend the stoppage idea to the throw-in as well.

To just add my comments to yours

This allows us to say that when the stoppage occurs during the THROW_IN (FT) (which means that the it has to occur while the THROWER (shooter) still has the ball), we resume with a THROW_IN (FT). But if the whistle sounds while the THROW_IN (FT) is in the air, the stoppage doesn't actually occur during the THROW_IN (FT), so we aren't required to resume with a THROW_IN (FT).

This would work for me on both!

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Kelvin green
This would work for me on both!

It doesn't, tho. Because during the throw-in, the whistle causes the ball to become dead immediately; during a FT, the whistle doesn't cause the ball to become dead until the FT ends. During a throw-in, the whistle and stoppage occur at the same time.

So my "solution" only works for a FT.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Kelvin green

My point exactly- I dont think you would give it back to team who had ball.

Here is what I mean...

Team A has ball for throw-in, pass is released and ball is in flight when A and B commit a double foul.

Who would have the ball when the whistle was blown? This is no different (using NFHS definitions) than a ball in flight on a shot. You dont know if pass will be intercepted, caught by A etc, and as we all know and discussed there is no team control on a throw-in.

If the Double foul happened prior to ball being handed to thrower I believe POI would be to call the foul and give it again to thrower but once ball is in the air you now have neither team in control, and there is no way to determine who would have had the ball if the whistle had not blown.

The comment is pretty clear that AP is used when POI cannot be determined. How do you determine POI on a throw-in once the ball is in flight?
If it were a foul only on offense it would be a 1 and 1. Double foul seems to go to the AP. As we have discussed here NFHS is all about rules consistency. Ball in flight with no team control and whistle is no different on a shot, throwin, rebound, or jump ball

My example meant to apply to a thrower still holding the ball...not a ball in flight.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Camron Rust


My example meant to apply to a thrower still holding the ball...not a ball in flight.

Now that I've throught about it more, I believe, based on several examples, that it should apply to the ball in flight as well.

Example 1: AP Throwin given to wrong team (team B)...if whistle is blown before it is touched in bounds, it is given to the correct team (team A) for the deserved AP throwin. Why? The ball be came dead at a time when A was due a throwin. If the ball had been touched inbounds, it's too late.

Example 2: Throwin for violation is given to wrong team (team B). It can be fixed if the ball is blown dead before the throwin ends.

Both of the examples give precedence to the idea that until a throwin ends, a possession is due to one team or the other due to a prior infraction (or held ball).

So, if a ball is being thrown in by team A when a double foul occurs, team A will get the ball as a result of the POI. The POI was during the throwin so we resume with that throwin.

[mplagrow]

I'm sorry I asked! Now my head hurts! I think the verbiage could be clearer.

[Kelvin green]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

It doesn't, tho. Because during the throw-in, the whistle causes the ball to become dead immediately; during a FT, the whistle doesn't cause the ball to become dead until the FT ends. During a throw-in, the whistle and stoppage occur at the same time.

So my "solution" only works for a FT.

So goes back to the original question. How do you apply both rules since they are in the same section using the same wording applying it consistently?

b. states play is resumed by throw-in when stoppage occurred during the activity...

c. states that you use AP when neither team is in control, and no goal, infraction or end of quarter is involved...

So when ball is in mid air on a throw-in and a double foul occurs. The stoppage occured during the throw-in while no one is in control.

AS you mention ball becomes dead immediately on the whistle. So the status of the ball is no team in control yet the throw-in has not ended....

I think the rules committee messed up on this one. If they wanted to treat this like pass when there is team control they should have told us. If you read the rule one way...literally you go back and shoot FT (again) because the stoppage happened before FT ended...

No hierarchy there, which trumps what?

[Nevadaref]

1. Kelvin, you're right that the wording of the new POI definition could be cleaned up. I finally saw your point about how that part b is written. However, if one looks at the entire definition as a whole, it seems that the FT already in flight, which misses, fits best under part c.
Of course, the throw-in play has to be covered by part b and there is STILL no team control during the throw-in for NFHS. Why didn't they just learn from the NCAA and make this change all at once in one year? We wouldn't be worrying about this if they had been smart about it.

2. Chuck, BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!!!! The stoppage doesn't occur DURING the FT activity because the ball remains live if a foul occurs while a try, including a FT, is in flight. This means that we don't reshoot the FT. On the other hand the stoppage does occur during the throw-in because the ball becomes dead at the time of the double-foul, so we go with a throw-in to the same team.
It seems a law degree is need to understand these basketball rules.


3. Camron, good argument by analogy for the throw-in. An attorney would argue in the same manner. It makes sense to handle the POI the same way. Of course, I expect the NFHS to make the NCAA amendment next year and have team control during a throw-in.

You guys really helped me understand this new POI rule better.
Thanks.

[rwest]

Correctable Error scenarios apply. For example:

Team A is in the bonus. The official erroneously signals two shots when they are in the 1-and-1. A1's first attempt is unsuccessful. No one attempts to rebound the ball. At this point the ball is dead and no team is in control. There has not been an infraction, nor is it the end of the period. This does not involve a goal. So all of the requirements are met.

The table now informs the officials that it should have been a 1-and-1. What do you do? Since A1 received his merited free-throw and no one made an attempt to rebound the ball, you have to go with an AP throw-in.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by rwest
Correctable Error scenarios apply. For example:

Team A is in the bonus. The official erroneously signals two shots when they are in the 1-and-1. A1's first attempt is unsuccessful. No one attempts to rebound the ball. At this point the ball is dead and no team is in control. There has not been an infraction, nor is it the end of the period. This does not involve a goal. So all of the requirements are met.

The table now informs the officials that it should have been a 1-and-1. What do you do? Since A1 received his merited free-throw and no one made an attempt to rebound the ball, you have to go with an AP throw-in.

8.6.1 specifically addresses this, and it is NOT a correctable error situation.

[rwest]

Awarding an unmerited free-throw is a correctable error. The official stepped in and said "2 shots" instead of 1-and-1. We've awarded them 2 shots. That is a correctable error. Now we can correct it before they take that 2nd shot or before the 2nd live ball.

In Case 8.6.1 it says the "officials recognize their error". What error was it? Awarding an unmerited free-throw, one of the correctable errors listed in 2-10. They corrected using the POI, which is a method of resuming play due to an official's accidental whistle, an interrupted game, a correctable error, a double personal foul, double technical or simultaneous foul. Which one of the above was the cause of them going to the POI to resume play? A correctable error. Why did they go to the AP throw-in? Because neither team was in control and no goal, infraction, nor end of quarter/extra period was involved.

[Kelvin green]

You read too much into the rule. In the scenario you posted there has not been a second shot awarded.

In fact 8.6.1 is a situation about providing erroneous information. The second shot was not awarded. It would be a correctable error in the situation if the officials would have tracked down the ball, handed it to the player and had him shoot a second that he was not entitled to.

All the cases about correctable errors are in Rule 2 interps.

The sceario you list and the one listed in 8.6.1 is not a POI. The editors probably should have said mistake instead of error but the scenario you describe has a specific casebook wording and interpretation because it happened. Prior to this situation, the team who picked up the ball would have received it whether anybody made a rebounding attempt. The situation you write about has happened and they did not one team to have an advantage because another was lulled into not playing because of an officials mistake of providing bad information. Once again This is not an unmerited FT.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rwest
Awarding an unmerited free-throw is a correctable error. The official stepped in and said "2 shots" instead of 1-and-1. We've awarded them 2 shots. That is a correctable error. Now we can correct it before they take that 2nd shot or before the 2nd live ball.

In Case 8.6.1 it says the "officials recognize their error". What error was it? Awarding an unmerited free-throw, one of the correctable errors listed in 2-10. They corrected using the POI, which is a method of resuming play due to an official's accidental whistle, an interrupted game, a correctable error, a double personal foul, double technical or simultaneous foul. Which one of the above was the cause of them going to the POI to resume play? A correctable error. Why did they go to the AP throw-in? Because neither team was in control and no goal, infraction, nor end of quarter/extra period was involved.

What unmerited free throw was taken that had to be cancelled using R2-10-1(b)?

The first free throw taken was merited. There NEVER was an unmerited free throw taken. At any time. How can you correct something that never happened?

Nevada is completely correct. It's an official's error, not a correctible error.

[rwest]

In my example, which was not exactly the same as 8.6.1, the table informs the officials that the team was in a 1-and-1. The officials did not notice the mistake on their own. Also, in my case play no one attempted a rebound. Everyone thought there would be 2 shots taken. Why, because the officials awarded 2 shots to the shooter. You can call this "Errorneous Information", but its still an error by the official. That's what correctable errors are.

Awarding free-throws is not the same as taken free-throws. Officials award free-throws to players. Players shoot free-throws. When in my example did the error occur? When the offical awarded two free-throws instead of 1-and-1. The effect of the error is that no one attempted a rebound. This was not the error, but the result.

Also, POI is used to put the ball back into play in my example. If this is not POI, what would you call it?

I guess where we differ is in the interpretation of "award".