A held ball is called. Arrow is pointing to Team A. While A1 is holding the ball OOB for the throw-in, A2 and B2 commit a double foul.

We go to the POI, which is the throw-in. Is this still considered an AP throw-in? If it were a single foul, the ensuing throw-in would not be an AP throw-in and the arrow would not be switched.

But since we're using the POI, is the POI an AP throw-in; or simply a throw-in?

Had this happen in the game before mine tonight. My partner and I went around on it for about 20 minutes. I can see both sides of it. We decided that if it happened in our game, it would still be an AP throw-in and we would switch the arrow.

Anyone have any other thoughts?

Well if you applied the old rule which was to go to the arrow, team A would be making an AP throw-in after the double foul.

To not call it a completion of an AP throw-in, would seem to penalize one team more than the other for the DF. To me POI means back to an AP throw-in.

Count each foul and continue with the alternating possession throw-in.

Chuck:

Under both NFHS and NCAA rules, the Team A's AP Throw-in has not ended because of the double foul between A2 and B2. At this point NFHS rules handles this play differently than NCAA Rules.

NFHS: There is no team control during a throw-in. Therefore, when a double personal foul occurs when there is no team control, this is a point of interruption situation. The point of interruption was an AP Throw-in by Team A, so the throw-in is an AP Throw-in by Team A.

NCAA: There is team control during a throw-in. Therefore, when a double personal foul occurs, when there is team control, the team who had control of the ball will receive a throw-in nearest the spot of the double foul. This throw-in is not an AP Throw-in; it is the penalty for the double foul by A2 and B2. Team A retains the AP Arrow for the next jump ball situation.

For those of you who are wondering why I use the term jump all situation instead of held ball, I used that term because it correctly defines any situation that requires the ball to be put back into play via a jump ball and therefore via an AP Throw-in.

MTD, Sr.

My thought is that - in the absence of much interpretation for the new rule - we should, for clarity, for simplicity, hell, even for consistency, take the idea of POI as literally as possible. If it was an AP throw-in that was interrupted or pending, go with the AP throw-in.