With new team control foul rule in NFHS, do we apply the same exception on throw ins as the NCAA? In NCAA, we consider the team with the ball "in control" in the case of fouls and double fouls, even though by rule a team in not in control on jumb balls, throw ins, and shots. With this exception, we utilize the POI on double fouls rather than the arrow and we DO NOT shoot free throws when the offense commits a foul. Again, my question is this consistent with the NFHS as well.

By rule a team *is* in control during a throw-in under ncaa rules. There is no "exception".

This is NOT the case under nfhs rules. There is no team contol during the throw-in under nfhs rules.

In NFHS do we use AP or POI on double fouls? Do we shoot FT's on "offensive fouls" if in the bonus?

nfhs uses poi on double fouls but I believe they go to AP if there is no team control (haven't dug into fed rules yet).

The new HS rule is identical to the existing ncaa rule on "offensive fouls" EXCEPT there is not team control during a throw-in. IOW for HS if there's a foul by the "offense" during a TI the defense shoots 1&1.

Dan's right on all points.

So what do we do on a double-foul during a throw-in?

What would've happened if the double foul hadn't happened?

Now I'm confused.

No team control: use AP. Right?
Is there TC during the HS throw-in? No.

You seem to want to go to POI.

Rule 4-36-2(b) sez you just re-do the original throw-in.

Wrong.

Us AP ONLY when there's no TC and no goal, infraction, end of quarter, TI, FT involved.

OK.

So for this purpose when does the throw-in end? Inbounds touch, correct?

By fed rules.

For HS, the interpretation we heard, if I interpreted it correctly, if the thrower has not released the ball, go to POI, e.i. the throw in. If the ball has been released,but not yet controlled by either team, there is no team possession, and no team control, go to AP.

that is contradicting what the rule is...that is why they should go with what ncaa has, team control on throw in.. during a throw in nfhs, no team control, double foul, ap arrow, not right, but that is what the rules say to do... until they change it that is what we have to do, by the rules!!!

blech, I was afraid you would say that.

The worst possible way to do this IMO.

No it's not. The rule says you go to the point of interruption and defines exactly what that is. If there's no team control, it's an AP throw-in unless (and everybody seems to want to forget this part of the rule) there is a goal or infraction or end of period involved.

There was an infraction involved here. That's why A had the ball for the throw-in. So the POI is the throw-in for the infraction. It's really not that hard to apply, IMO. People are making this way harder than it really is.

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.