desiignated Spot
 

This question caused much discussion in a recent meeting;

After a field goal by team A,B- has the ball out of bounds when A-2 and B-2 commit a double personal foul. Official awards the ball back to team B and rules the throw-in is a designated spot throw-in..Is the official correct?

I believe the official is correct based upon rule 7-5-7b ..what do you all think?

Thanks for yor help

No I believe that B still retains the right to run the baseline as that is not negated by the double foul.

I believe that is the correct call. Had only Team A fouled, I believe Team B would still be able to run. However since Team B also fouled; I would go with Spot throw-in. Now let me get my books....

Spot throw in 7.5.3.b

Point Of Interuption
 

I believe that the penalty for a double personal foul involves the point of interuption. Since the point of interuption was a "running" the endline throwin, wouldn't this be the way that the ball was puit back in play?

I don't see a case 7.5.3b

4.19.8c seems to apply (although in the case the foul happens before the throw-in, rather than during it), so I'd give B the end-line.

Methinks(which usually gets me in trouble) that he meant 7-5-3(b). That rule does say that the it's a designated spot throw-in. That's misleading though imo because a double foul goes to the POI, and the POI in this case is an <b>unrestricted</b> endline throw-in. Logically, I can't see why they'd penalize the throwing team more than their opponents in a double-foul situation by tacking on the added penalty of the throwing team losing the right to run the endline.

7-5-7(b) says they retain the right to run the end line if the scoring team commits a violation or common foul......since a double foul is not a common foul my thinking was a designated spot throw in..more food for thought

What you say here certainly has merit. However, I would probably go with this:

4.19.8 SITUATION E: 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; 7-5-3b)

Wouldn't the double personal be made up of two common personal fouls? So it looks to me like you'd let B run the baseline for the POI.

You need to study your definitions. :(

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.

Guess I was reading the wrong definition. My mistake.