NFHS, Rule 6-4-3-e:
AP throw-ins shall be from the OOB spot nearest to where the ball was located. An AP throw-in shall result when. . .the ball becomes dead when neither team is in control and no goal, infraction, nor end of a quarter/extra period is involved.

Could someone please explain a real game situation where this could occur? I'm having trouble imagining this scenario.

Answering my own question
 

Would an example of this be a double foul while a missed shot is in the air?

Double foul on a missed ahot, double foul on a rebound, double foul on a throw in... See other post on POI

(RookieDude raising hand)...I know, I know!!

With my newfound knowledge, I will give you a real game situation...

A1 puts up a try...while the ball is in the air, A2 and B2 push each other, commiting a double foul.
The official blows the whistle as the try is missed.

Watta ya got?

Edit: Dang...to slow. Kelvin has this one nailed! ;)

[Edited by RookieDude on Oct 30th, 2005 at 04:55 PM]

OK
 

Guess I've been off the board for too long. . . .

Re: OK
 

Don't feel bad mplagrow...
I came to this site to clarify the POI and Team Control stuff also. There was some confusion between some of my fellow officials. (Me included)

Don't tell anyone, but I have to talk about this at our upcoming association meeting...sometimes we can all use a little help. ;)

Hold on folks, what about the part of the rule that mplagrow posted that says "... no infraction... is involved."?

All of your examples are about double fouls, which are infractions.

I can't think of an example, but right now I'm not thinking very straight at all about anytning!

How about an inadvertant whistle with neither team in control- rebound, missed last FT,etc.? See R4-36-1 and 4-36-2(c).

Also, you get an AP under the weird situation(s) listed in R5-4-3. An example of that might be fans coming on to the court during a rebound.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Oct 30th, 2005 at 06:50 PM]

The ball gets lodged or comes to rest on the flange seems to fit the definition.

Mregor

I don't believe a double foul on a throwin does applies. There was likely an infraction or goal involved that was the reason for the throwin. The team throwing the ball in earned a throwin due to a prior infraction and the double foul doesn't negate that. This same language is used in discussions of an inadvertant whistle. The ball shall go back to the team that has the ball for the throwin.

You only go to the arrow on when there is no way to know who would have got the ball next if the whistle hadn't been blown.

As long as the "wedgie" is the result of a try. If it's the result of a deflected pass, then there's still team control.

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

But the correct answer is that you DO give it back to the team which was making the throw-in as long as the double-foul occurs during the throw-in. In other words, prior to the ball being touched inbounds.

Why? Because the new rule specifically says to do so.

4-36-2b
"A free throw or a throw-in when the stoppage occurred during this activity or if a team is entitled to such."

I am going to tell you that the rules committee did a poor job of writing this rule..

What does it mean that "play is resumed by a FT or throw-in when the stoppage occurred during this activity?"

Are you telling me that because a double foul happens during a FT (once the ball has been released on the last shot) that you give it back to the team and have them shoot it again?...(
remember FT try does not end until it is sucessful, when it is certain it will be unsuceessful,or whn it touches, the floor, a player or it becomes dead)..

So by this logic until the FT ends you redo the FT when the stoppage ocuured during this activity. No way! no how!

So what is the definitonal difference between a shot taken and a ball in flight on a throw-in.

I believe that 4-36 b in the rule was written to deal with the double garbage that occurs while the ball to be put in play by a FT or throw-in (I want to say a dead ball but this would not quite exactly true)

If the double foul occurred up until the time the FT shooter releases the ball, we would blow it dead and resume with a FT. I believe this would be the same on a throw-in.

This is different than a pass mid air from A1 to A2 where there is team control.

Well, now you are half right.

1. If the double-foul during a FT occurs prior to the release, you blow the whistle for the foul. Since it is NOT a foul just by the defense, continuous motion does not apply and the ball is dead. The game would be resumed by readministering the FT.

2. If the double-foul occurs AFTER the FT has been released then there is NO TEAM CONTROL. The try is in flight. The new POI definition tells us to do one of three things to resume the game: a. administer the next FT, if more are merited, b. award the ball OOB along the endline (with running) to Team B if the try was successful, c. go to the AP if the try misses.

You would not redo the FT that had already been released. You got that right.

But you are failing to grasp that "when the FT ends" has nothing to do with either Team Control or the new POI definition. It is all about the time of the release.

The key difference is that a pass in flight retains team control while a try in flight, even a FT, does not.
Hope that helps clarify it.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

Correctable Error
 

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.

Sure it is
 

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.

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.

Re: Sure it is
 

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 <b>unmerited</b> free throw taken. At any time. How can you correct something that never happened? :confused:

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

I still disagree.
 

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".

Re: I still disagree.
 

Very simple question.....

What <b>unmerited</b> free throw was taken in your situation?

You cannot apply a rule correcting an <b>unmerited</b> free throw that was taken to a situation that <b>never</b> actually happened.

Again, there <b>NEVER</b> was an <b>UNMERITED</b> free throw taken. You can't correct something that never happened. That's why you can't apply R2-10-1(b), or any other part of 2-10-1 for that matter. It's that simple.

None,
 

No unmerited free-throw was taken, but the correctable error is not in the taking of an unmerited free-throw but the awarding of the unmerited free-throw, as rule 2-10 says. I agree that taken the unmerited free-throw is also an error that can be corrected. But the rule says "awarding" and I believe that we can correct the error before the shot is actually taken.

I think we are splitting hairs. Is there any situation you can think of that my interpretation will get me into trouble? If so, please let me know. I want to get this right.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I really do believe this is a correctably error.

In either case, I got the resumption of play correct. We go with an AP throw-in.

Another point in my favor is that in my example we use the POI of interruption to resume play. Now what caused use to use POI? The rule book says POI is .... Method of resuming play due to

1. An official's accidental whistle ===> Not applicable
2. An interrupted game, as in 5-4-3 ===> Not applicable
3. A correctable error ===> I think this applies
4. A double personal, double technical, or simultaneous foul ===> Not Applicable

I also believe the title above case play 8.6.1, which is similar to my example, is misleading. Rule 8-6 is entitled Resuming Play Differences. No where in rule 8-6-1 or 8-6-2 does it mention what to do when an error occurs. So the scenario in Case Play 8.6.1 must involve some other rule. I believe it is Rule 2-10.

Cool.

Now, what <b>unmerited</b> free throw was <b>awarded</b>?

The only free throw taken- the first one, was a <b>MERITED</b> free throw.

There <b>NEVER</b> was an unmerited free throw <b>awarded</b>.

POI?
 

Did we use POI to resume play? If so, why did we use POI?

The only options are:

1. Accidental Whistle
2. Interrupted Game
3. Correctable Error
4. Double Personal
5. Double Technical
6. Simultaneous Foul

Did an error occur prior to shooting the 2nd free-throw? If so, what was the error?

Another Example
 

Case Play 2.10.1 Situation B

A1 has been awarded two free throws. Errorneously, the ball is allowed to remain in play after A1 misses on the first attempt. A2 rebounds the miss and tosses the ball through the basket. B1 secures the ball and inbounds it. Play continues until a foul is called on A2 as B is passing the ball in B's front-court.

Ruling: The goal by A2 counts, but the error of not awarding A1 a second free throw is no longer correctable....

Now in this case play we both have wording to support are different positions. Notice it says at the beginning of the play that "A1 has been awarded two free throws". Even before he shot the first free throw, the case says he has been awarded two.

It then has language in the ruling that supports your interpretation of "award" in that "the error of not awarding A1 a second free throw is no longer correctable."

I can see where both interpretations work.

Ding wrong answer thank you for playong
 

I quote...

You can call this "Errorneous Information", but its still an error by the official. That's what correctable errors are.

Correctable errors are not errors by the offical, they are specific and defined. Making an incorrect announcement about something is not a correctable error plain and simple.

In your example you are not putting the ball back into play using POI. Your putting the ball back into play because the officials told players there was two shots, and turns out it was one and one... Since neither team went for the ball and so one team does not get an advantage thr rule writers put in the interp that you go with AP.

If you went with POI modifying your example if one team rebounded the ball and another did not POI would give the ball back to the tam who rebounded it. But the ruling specifically states that you wont do that unless both teams went for ball and rebounded...

As JR stated there has never been an unmerited free-throw awarded.

in Case play 2.10.1 they use "award and announce" two FT's instead of one. In my mind this a a nuance that is there. If you awarded a team 2 FT's at scorer's table when reporting the foul (most likely the time you awarded the shots) but team was in bonus and you announce 1+1, and they play on did you have an unmerited FT that needs to be corrected under rule? I dont think so...

I still think most of time you will find awarded means giving the player a shot he was not entitled to. In your scenarion tht never happened.

Not all correctable errors use POI either. if you need to shoot a shot nd there has been no change of possession you go to the line and shoot and resume. it is an exception to POI

You also have to remember that you cannot correct every mistake, you ask how this effects the game?

If you attempt to correct every mistake thinking it is correctable you will eventually cost a team a game.

You call a foul on the wrong player, not correctable!

You give the ball to the wrong team after a time out, ball comes into play, not correctable.

Awarding the wrong ball on AP is an error by the official but not correctable.

Announce and have recorded in 1Q that A calls time out but it was really B, and someone asks at the next quarter break, not correctable.

Put 5 seconds back on clock when you should have only put 4 not correctable...