Long Time Lurker, First Time Poster

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is scary. Dan and I agree on this. Why wouldn't 4-3-3 apply during a throw-in? Is there somewhere in the rules where it says that it doesn't?

Legitimate question followed by another:

If you have a double foul in the key after the throw-in has been released but before it is touched(like the current situation), where is the POI?

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by socalreff

Legitimate question followed by another:

If you have a double foul in the key after the throw-in has been released but before it is touched(like the current situation), where is the POI?

Ah, answering a question with another question. I like that, I'll give it a shot...

Where in the original post is there a foul of any type?

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Ah, answering a question with another question. I like that, I'll give it a shot...

Where in the original post is there a foul of any type?

Let me connect the dots....
Would the throw-in spot be any different in the 2 scenarios? (Mine or the original)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by socalreff

Let me connect the dots....
Would the throw-in spot be any different in the 2 scenarios? (Mine or the original)

Yep, because under the current rules the OP is NOT a POI situation because the reason for the stoppage is not one of those listed in 4-36-1.

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yep, because under the current rules the OP is NOT a POI situation because the reason for the stoppage is not one of those listed in 4-36-1.

So what I'm hearing is that you're going to complete the throw-in for them and advance the ball?!?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by socalreff

So what I'm hearing is that you're going to complete the throw-in for them and advance the ball?!?

Let me be clear: In the OP, I believe that the current NFHS rules are terrible and should be changed. I believe that the current NFHS rules call for the official to advance the ball for the team, if the AP arrow favors them. I won't do that. I will fudge this one and say that it falls under an interrupted game, then use 4-36 (POI).

In your example, with the double foul, the ball doesn't advance per the current rules because this situation is cleary covered by the POI definition and that rule says to resume with the throw-in or FT that the stoppage occurred during.

[NewNCref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Let me be clear: In the OP, I believe that the current NFHS rules are terrible and should be changed.

I don't know about terrible, but I definitely think there needs to be clarification about this (I think a casebook play would be exactly what we need).

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I believe that the current NFHS rules call for the official to advance the ball for the team, if the AP arrow favors them.

Okay, I'm still with you.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I won't do that.

WOAH....you admit what the rules are regarding this, but refuse to enforce them

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I will fudge this one and say that it falls under an interrupted game, then use 4-36 (POI).

And of course, while we're not going to enforce the correct rule, let's improperly apply another


Your post is completely absurd. What if I said, "The penalty for slapping the backboard (while not attempting to block a shot) is a technical foul. I won't do that. I'll just call it basket interference"? That's absurd! While I may believe that's what the penalty should be, I don't do it.

Maybe we should just all ask Nevada what he thinks the proper rule for everything should be.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by socalreff

Let me connect the dots....
Would the throw-in spot be any different in the 2 scenarios? (Mine or the original)

Not following you at all my friend.

One whistle is for a foul.

The other is to fix a clock error.

Completely different scenarios.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by socalreff

Legitimate question followed by another:

If you have a double foul in the key after the throw-in has been released but before it is touched(like the current situation), where is the POI?

The original throw-in spot.

Why? -- because a double foul DURING a throw-in is clearly one of the items listed in 4-36-1 that invokes the POI rule. Ball location doesn't matter if the double foul happened DURING the throw-in because 4-36-2b doesn't say to go to the location of the ball, only 4-36-2a does. For part b the POI is the throw-in.