After a made basket, team "A" is inbounding the basketball. A double foul is called. Can team "A" still run the baseline or does it become a spot through in, or does it go to the possesion arrow, or what?

no possession arrow
 

team A would still have the ball and retain the baseline. we continue on in the game much as if nothing had happened when thos fouls occured and just play on.

Can you please tell me where in the book you come up with your answer.

Thanx

i dont
 

have my book on me -- but if im going by if a team with the baseline gets fouled before the throw in is completed and the throw in will on the baseline then they retain thr right to run baseline.

I dont see why because of a double foul going to POI would make that throw in a spot throw in.

That's actually an excellent question.

Rule 4-36 (new rule this year). When there is a double foul, you resume from the point of interruption.

Interesting though because you'd think that Team A would lose their rate to run the baseline due to A1 being involved in a foul. I don't think this case is specifically addressed for NFHS.

College refs... is it addressed in NCAA?

Z

The NFHS rule on running the endline is 7-5-7. "After a goal or awarded goal as in 7-4-3, the team not credited with the score shall make the throw-in from the end of the court where the goal was made and from any point outside the end line. A team retains this privilege if the scoring team commits a violation or common foul (before the throw-in ends and before the bonus is in effect) and the ensuing throw-in spot would have been on the end line. Any player of the team may make a direct throw-in or he/she may pass the ball along the end line to a teammate(s) outside the boundary line."

Note that the right to run the endline is retained after a common foul. A double foul is not a common foul. NFHS 4-19-2: "A common foul is a personal foul which is neither flagrant nor intentional nor committed against a player trying or tapping for a field goal nor a part of a double, simultaneous or multiple foul."

So A does not retain the right to run the endline. However, as Z pointed out, you do go the POI (which does not, however, include running the endline).

Works for me,

thanx

I agree with the ruling presented above. By being involved in the double foul, A1 cost his team the right to run. I don't know if that is fair or not since both teams fouled and it seems that Team A is being punished more by also losing the running privilege. Perhaps the NFHS should look at this now that we have POI. Under our current rules they lose the running since a double foul is certainly not a common foul.

Little twists like this keep me intrigued in rules!

My preference is that A keeps the endline. I guess I am a purest when I implement Point of Interruption. :)

Re: no possession arrow
 

Remember their is no team control on throw-ins....

Re: Re: no possession arrow
 

Correct, but so what?

Re: Re: Re: no possession arrow
 

I thought I read something about team control in the thread. My fault, still early.

Where's a moderator when you need one?!?

I don't think the rule quoted by Back in the Saddle matters. We are returning to the POI so I say let A run the baseline.

Team A does NOT retain the right to run the endline. The rule as BITS quoted above requires that when a COMMON FOUL is called on Team B, Team A will retain the right to run the endline. The new rule on POI does NOT supercede that.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Jan 21st, 2006 at 04:02 PM]

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.....

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)

Nor does it state what type of THROW-IN shall be used when we resume. :D

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 <font color = red>free throw</font> that play is resumed on. That's exactly what we've been arguing about for 3 pages. [/B][/QUOTE]

Nor does it state what type of THROW-IN shall be used when we resume. :D [/B][/QUOTE]Edited. Give me a freaking break, willya? It's 4am and I just got up to let the damn dogs out. :)

Nevada: in Play 1, there's no POI designation. In Play 2, the POI designation isn't applicable based on what happened.

In the play referenced, POI is applicable, thus the difference. Again, there's no rules support that I'm aware of that committing a foul overrides POI. And based upon the reference I gave, its clear the committee feels POI means just that: at the point of interruption.

JR: I don't understand what you mean by you don't agree that B applies. Which POI reference applies?

The argument is that rule 7-5-7 applies and that the team doesn't retain their right to run because a double foul isn't a common foul.

That's why <b>no</b> POI isn't applicable- because R7-5-9 which you are relying on <b>isn't</b> applicable.

We've put in 4 pages arguing this so far. You answer is not a <b>definitive</b> answer.

Of course, you could say the same thing about mine....ergo 4 pages. :)

I never said that there was. I quoted the interp because we have also been talking about the NFHS going by a rationale that a team should not lose an advantage when the opponent does something wrong. I believe that it is utter nonsense that a team keeps the right to run when they are offended by a common foul, but loses it when they suffer the greater offense of an intentional or a flagrant foul. Who cares that 2FTs intervene? This was really a poor rule change.

I quoted this interp not because of what does happen in the play itself, but because of the comment to the ruling for part (c).
There is no question that POI applies when there is a double foul while a try for goal is in the air. The comment that I even put in bold directly says that for you.

Here's that quote again, "Had the try been successful, the <font color = red>point of interruption</font> would have been a throw-in for Team B from anywhere along the end line."

So in this play we have POI being used for a noncommon foul and on the ensuing throw-in the team retains the running privilege. That exactly counters 7-5-7, which states that the team only retains this right following common fouls.

So my point in citing these two interps is that there is evidence both ways. The NFHS needs to fix this and make a definitive ruling.

That exactly counters 7-5-7, which states that the team only retains this right following common fouls.


Nevada,

With all due respect you keep putting the word "only" into 7-5-7 and it does not appear in the rule.

7-5-7 (in part) reads:

"A team retains this privilege (running the end line) if the scoring team commits a violation or common foul (before the throw-in ends and before the bonus is in effect) and the ensuing throw-in spot would have been on the end line."

The word "only" is not found in that rule.

Double fouls are simply not addressed in rule 7-5-7, as such we follow the POI rules of double fouls.

Intentional and flagrant fouls can be differentiated because they involve free throws and NO provision of POI.

In general, in this forum, I think we hold so tightly to the letter of the law (rules) that we sometimes forget to look at the spirit of the law when applying rules to situations.

When the NCAA added the "retains the right to run the endline" rule a couple of years ago, they left out any reference to intentional and flagrant personal fouls. They dealt with that explicitly the following year. (See NCAA Rule 7-5.7.)

For double personal fouls, the NCAA doesn't use PoI, but explicitly says to give the ball back to the team in control at the designated spot nearest where the fouls occur. Since there's team control in NCAA during a throw-in, that's clear.

In the case of technical fouls, NCAA uses PoI. However, there is an Approved Ruling:

A.R. 13. The coach from Team Ais assessed a direct technical foul (b) during a throw-in;
RULING: Aplayer from Team B shall attempt the two free throws for the direct technical foul. In (b), the ball shall be put back into play at a designated spot for a throw-in, which, in this case, is the spot of the original throw-in.

That's pretty clear, too---the right to run the endline is lost.

Perhaps the NFHS will follow along these lines in the next year or two.

That's my point. One interp supports 7-5-7 and the other contradicts it.


I don't know how long you have been officiating HS basketball, but this has to do with the history of this rule over the past few years. So in order to properly respond to your post, I need to cover the evolution of this rule.

Back in 2001-02 7-5-7 was first changed to permit a team to retain the running privilege. The rule was worded differently in its first form. It said, "A team retains this privilege if the scoring team commits a violation or foul (before the bonus is in effect) on the ensuing throw-in if the resulting throw-in spot would be on the endline."

Notice the phrase "on the ensuing throw-in."

While this original version made it clear that the foul or violation had to occur on the throw-in, it failed to account for the scoring team fouling or violating prior to that throw-in. Therefore, the NFHS made another change the very next season.

So, in 2002-03 the rule became "A team retains this privilege if the scoring team commits a violation or foul (before the bonus is in effect) and the ensuing throw-in spot would be on the endline."

Now this wording covered offenses prior to and during the throw-in. Unfortunately, since it didn't specify a time frame, some people interpreted the rule to mean that a team could still run even when being fouled near the end line AFTER completing the throw-in. That is not the correct understanding.

Finally in 2004-05 the word "common" was added to describe the type of foul, giving us our current wording.

At the front of the rules book that season under the heading, "2004-05 Major Editorial Changes" there appeared, "7-5-7 Clarified that a team will retain end-line run privileges after a violation or common foul."

So why would the NFHS need to issue a clarification which added the word "common" unless they intended to except other types of fouls? That is why I wrote only common fouls. That is obviously the purpose of the NFHS clarification.

Also, that interp which I labelled play 1 in an earlier post in this thread was issued that same season by the NFHS.

Furthermore, situation #6 from the 2004-05 interps actually became case book play 7.5.7 situation D that same season replacing the previous ruling which was:

7.5.7 SITUATION D: 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 be permitted to run the end line on the ensuing throw-in. (7-5-11)


Could it be any clearer that the NFHS purposely chose to take away the running privilege on noncommon fouls?

If the concensous is that they loose the privlidge to run the baseline after a double foul how come we do not reset the shot clock after a double foul. If it is P.O.I. it is exactly that. They should be able to run.

Because this is NFHS basketball and there is no shot clock! At least there is not one provided for in the NFHS rules.

You folks in CA and a handful of other states such as MA who do use it are in the vast minority.

Nevada,

Wow. Two excellent, well thought out and communicated posts. You have obviously put some time and effort into this subject. I respect your opinion.

I do have somewhat of a rebuttal, though, regarding the history of the rule. The issue of Double Fouls did not apply to this situation in the past because on Double Fouls we used AP. So the throw-in was a spot throw-in by the AP team. No need to include Double Fouls in 7.5.7; it simply didn't apply

Now that we are using POI for Double Fouls, it is clear to me what that POI is in this situation, and that is running the baseline on the throw-in. I beleive NFHS will modify 7.5.7 next year to catch what they didn't clarify this year.

Thanks for your historical input. I love this forum.