why would the rule on
 

poi not superceed? it seems clear that we go to the poi in this case so poi was team a had "endline" to run -- why would we change this as spot throw in is not poi

Re: why would the rule on
 

The POI is a throw-in. We return to the throw-in. But Team A only retains the right to run the endline if the foul is a COMMON foul. A DOUBLE foul is not a COMMON foul.

Re: Re: why would the rule on
 

I don't like this ruling.

POI means exactly that, continue from the point the game was interrupted.

To give A the throw-in but take away A's ability to run the line is NOT POI.

I'm with NevadaRef on this. I think the Fed should look at how POI interacts with running the baseline in this case. If they allowed A to retain the right to run the baseline, I think that would be truer to the notion of POI.

But as it stands, the rule on retaining the run is very specific about only in the case of a common foul. This, I believe was a change they made just a couple of years ago? At the time they made it clear that their intent was only common fouls allow a team to retain the baseline.

The rule is also very specific that we return to the POI on a double foul.

The wording of 7-5-7 does not read at all on the rules related to how we handle double fouls.

Just to add to the discussion, if I may.

When do you go to AP on a double foul?

* During a try for goal and/or rebound.

* During a jump ball.

...any other time?

Also...

During a Team A throw-in...A2 fouls B1. Team A has 7 team fouls.
Does B1 shoot the bonus FTs or go to "POI"?

Why or why not.

There is no team control during a throw-in, so we do not have a team control foul. Shoot 'em!

Re: Re: no possession arrow
 

See my question about a foul during a throw-in. Some officials get the application of the rules confused here, when dealing with a common foul or a double foul in this situation.

JugglingReferee answered it correctly...is this what you meant about no team control on a throw-in, IREFU2?

Loose ball after the throwin has ended but before one team gains control.

Okay, Dan. So, maybe you're right. After an exhaustive research effort, including an inter-library loan from MTD's attic, and some delightfully mind-expanding drugs :D, I must conclude that I can effectively argue both sides of the issue.

7-5-7 either excludes the possibility of retaining the privilege of running the baseline for non-common fouls, or it only addresses the very narrow topic of retaining the privilege after a common foul by the scoring team and is irrelevant to and thus silent on other types of fouls. It could be read either way.

Points for not retaining the run

• 7-5-7 specificially limits the privilege of retaining the run of the baseline to violations and common fouls committed by the scoring team. A double foul is not a common foul committed by the scoring team.
• 4-36, the definition of POI, makes no mention of running the baseline.
• The only non-common foul case for 7-5-7, an intentional or flagrant foul near the end line, results in a designated spot throw-in.
• The only case I can find that discusses double foul, POI, and running the end line, 4.19.8 SIT. C, does not address the throwing team retaining the privilege. It only says they get it initially. Otherwise the case book is silent on the matter.
• Over the past three years the Fed has continously tweaked the exact phrase in 7-5-7 in question. Last year, they restricted it to only common fouls and called it a clarification, meaning that's what they always intended.
• They tweaked 7-5-7 again this year, adding language addressing this exact situation (foul before the throw-in ends). But in light of the significant expansion of POI, they chose not to remove the common foul restriction.

Points for retaining the run

• That phrase in 7-5-7 is meant only to address the specific issue of the scoring team violating or fouling and ending the non-scoring team's right to run the end line.
• The phrase is necessary because otherwise 7-5-2 and 7-5-5 would force a spot throw-in.
• The changes in 7-5-7 marked as clarifications make it clear they are dealing very narrowly with this one tactic.
• The throw-in related remedies for other kinds of fouls are spelled out in the rest of 7-5 and pass without comment in 7-5-7, because they are actually unrelated this very narrowly-targeted phrase.
• The 7-5-7 case play involving the intentional or flagrant foul tells us that non-common fouls retain thier usual penalties.
• The usual penalty for a double foul is POI.
• 4-36-2-a, which addresses the "usual" case for POI clearly indicates a designated spot throw-in. However, 4-36-2-b, which covers our case of POI during an interrupted throw-in, does not indicate a designated spot throw-in.
• POI means just what it says. If a team had the right to run the baseline when the throw-in was interrupted, returning to the point of interruption means they have the right to run the baseline.
• 4.19.8 SIT. C tells us that POI includes the privilege of running the baseline in situations where it would normally exist.

Unless somebody can point out a fatal flaw in one of my lists, I think this one needs to go on Nevada's list of things we'd like the Fed to clarify.


[Edited by back in the saddle on Jan 21st, 2006 at 09:29 PM]

I'm adding it now.

Certainly some clarification is in order from the NFHS. But I'd bet a game fee that if something does come down, Team A will lose the right to run the end line. :)

Which game fee - middle school or D-1? ;)

I agree with this, but I wish it weren't true. I think Dan's interpretation is the better one. One of the reasons for changing the enforcement of double fouls was that neither team should benefit from committing the foul. In other words, suppose A1 is dribbling the ball inbounds. A2 and B2 foul each other at the same time. If the arrow is pointing toward B, then B actually benefits from the foul by causing a turnover. Going to the POI eliminates this possible advantage.

However, if the inbounding team loses the ability to run the endline after a double foul, then team B still gets an advantage from double foul.

By the FED's own rationale, they should keep the endline; but in order to stay consistent with the "common foul" clause that we've been debating, I would bet that the official interp will be that the inbounding team loses the right to run.

One of the reasons for changing the enforcement of double fouls was that neither team should benefit from committing the foul.

However, if the inbounding team loses the ability to run the endline after a double foul, then team B still gets an advantage from double foul.

[/B][/QUOTE]Agree with Dan and Chuck. Common sense would seem to imply that the throwing team shouldn't be disadvantaged by losing their original right to run the endline. That would be penalizing the throwing team twice while only penalizing the defensive team once. That's illogical.

But if it happens in the last 5 seconds of a quarter.....