I with the camp of retaining the right to run the line...to do otherwise would disadvantage one team over the other contraty to the purpose of the POI changes.

I don't do either. :D

I tooam in the camp of retaining the endline. I believe that keeping the symmetry in the team's penalties is important.

I don't know the Fed as well as you guys do, but I believe they will say that the endline is lost.

Thanks, but I don't know if I'm any better off then when I started

I feel for you. You came with a question, and you get conflicting and ambiguous answers. That bites. Of course, I feel even worse. I came with a single, solid answer and left with conflicting and ambiguous answers. That sucks. ;)

I think you've got a couple options here. One is to talk to whomever provides interpretations in your area and find out how he or she wants you to do it. The other is to pick the answer that makes most sense to you, prepare yourself to defend it if questioned, and go with it.

Very good advice, BITS. Here's a Don't: don't appear hesitant with the call, that you're unsure of what to do. That's why it's good to play these things out here at OF.COM... when it happens in a game, you're like bam-bam, this is the call, and away we go.

I don't follow the logic here. 7-5-7 does not address Double Fouls. The rule change on Double Fouls would indicate that we pick up at POI which is running the baseline.

Is there a case on this situation.

If there were, would we be 3 pages into this thread? :)

Sorry, as you can see, I'm fairly new here. I read page 1 and responded. Next time I'll read the whole thread.

No worries. Welcome to the forum.

It depends TOTALLY on the definition of POI. I don't have my book here, so would someone quote the rule?

SECTION 36 POINT OF INTERRUPTION
ART. 1 ... Method of resuming play due to an official's accidental whistle, an interrupted game, as in 5-4-3, a correctable error, as in 2-10-6, a double personal, double technical or simultaneous foul, as in 4-19-8 and 4-19-10.
ART. 2 ... Play shall be resume by:
a. A throw-in to the team that was in control at a spot nearest to where the ball was located when the stoppage occurred.
b. A free throw or a thorw-in when the stoppage occurred during this activity or if a team is entitled to such.
c. An alternating-possession throw-in when the point of interruption is such that neither team is in control and no goal, infraction, nor end of quarter/extra period is involved.

So, A is inapplicable since the ball isn't controlled by anyone.

B applies and the way I look at it, he can run. POI means just that: the point at which play was interrupted. He could run before, so he can run now.

To say he loses the right to run because his teammate committed a foul isn't accurate. If you read the comments on the revisions, it says, "the committee felt that no team should benefit from a double foul." Having a spot through in would benefit team B and there isn't any rules support for the idea that A must lose their right to run just because they committed a foul. At least not considering both the definition and intent of POI.

While I agree with your logic that no team should benefit from a double foul, I disagree completely with your opinion that B is definitive. The rule does <b>not</b> mention what <b>type</b> of throw-in that play is resumed on. That's exactly what we've been arguing about for 3 pages.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 25th, 2006 at 04:08 AM]

The following two interps are about the best info that we have from the NFHS. In one play Team A loses the right to run after being intentionally fouled. Team A didn't even do anything wrong on the play and they lose the running privilege! This ruling accompanied a rule change with added the word "common" before foul in 7-5-7. I thought it was a poor rules change then and feel even more so now.

In the other play, there is a double foul just prior to an endline running throw-in being due and when the game is resumed at the POI, the team is permitted to run the end line.

So the logic escapes me. If there is a Double Foul before the throw-in then the team may run, but if they are offended by a noncommon foul during the throw-in then they lose that right. This is flat out illogical.


Play 1:
2004-05 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 6: Team A scores a field goal. B1 picks up the ball and steps out of bounds at the end line to prepare for a throw-in. Before the throw-in is completed, A2 is called for an intentional (or flagrant) foul on B3 near the end line. RULING: B3 would shoot the two free throws for the intentional (or flagrant) foul with the lane cleared. Team B will then have a designated spot throw-in on the end line. (7-5-7, 7-5-11)


Play 2:
2005-06 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 8: A1 has control of the ball in Team A’s frontcourt. Post players A5 and B5 are pushing each other in an attempt to gain a more advantageous position on the block while (a) A1 is dribbling the ball; (b) the ball is in the air on a pass from A1 to A2; or (c) the ball is in the air on an unsuccessful try for goal by A1. An official calls a double personal foul on A5 and B5. RULING: In (a) and (b), Team A had control of the ball when the double foul occurred, and thus play will be resumed at the point of interruption. Team A will have a designated spot throw-in nearest the location where the ball was located when the double foul occurred. In (c), no team has control while a try for goal is in flight, and since the try was unsuccessful, there is no obvious point of interruption. Play will be resumed with an alternating possession throw-in nearest the location where the ball was located when the double foul occurred. Had the try been successful, the point of interruption would have been a throw-in for Team B from anywhere along the end line. (4-36; 6-4-3g; 7-5-9)