Just as a side note, NCAA does *not* go to POI on double personal fouls. The ball goes back to the team in control at the designated spot nearest the fouls with no reset of the shot clock. (Use AP if there is no team control.)

We had the discussion ad nauseum in another thread. We came to the conclusion that the rule was worded badly..

Recheck the wording. It actually say AP when neither team is in control AND no goal, infraction, nor end of quarter is involved.

Its a badly written sentence at best

The ball being in the air on a throw-in and being in the air on a shot by definition have the exact same status.

The no goal involved is easy. It is telling us that if the ball is in mid air and no goal is scored that we use AP.

The end of quarter is easy since the quarter is over so we go to the start of the next quarter.

I can see Chuck's point that neither team is in control and there is an infraction but it is not an unless it is an AND.So I read this as no team in control and an infraction taking place (the reason why there was a whistle was the infraction). Once again strictly by definition this is the same as an unsuccessful shot in mid air. The comments to the rules specifically states that when POI cannot be determined ie unsuceesful try in flight...

I like Frank's interp but not sure given the rule that it is correct either since there is no team control until way after the throw-in ends. ( In his situation it is easy to determine POI but reading the exct definition of giving it back to the team who was in control does not work definitinally as well)

My point the wording sucks! Who knows Mary S at NFHS or anybody who can get to her for a good ruling before we have messes all across the country because we right rules like the tax code.

Should have used the NCAA rule but no, cant copy them now can we?

I agree.

I'm not sure what you're driving at, Kelvin. If you're just restating that, for the purposes of determining a POI, a released throw-in is the same as an unsuccessful try, then I agree, as I stated above.

However, the original situation that I was discussing is the case where the inbounder still has the ball when the double foul occurs. In this case, I think it's pretty clear that the POI is that same throw-in, b/c of the infraction that preceded it.

I don't think you need to be so concerned over the "and" portion of the rule.

And P.S., BTW, FWIW, etc. . . I don't think the FED should adopt the NCAA rule. I don't like the fact that we have to fundamentally alter the notion of team control and then make goofy exceptions -- for backcourt violations and 3-second violations.

I would rather leave the definition of team control alone and then make an exception for "offensive" fouls during the throw-in. If you really want to eliminate 1-and-1's for fouls during a throw-in, just say that. "No FTs awarded to a player as a result of a common foul during an opponent's throw-in." That's much simpler than writing two exceptions for other violations.

Either way, we have to introduce a goofy exception. So let's leave our fundamental definitions alone. JMO.