Question... Do we go to the arrow?

[Bchill24]

B-1 is awarded one free throw. A1 and B2 commit a double personal foul. B1 try fails to hit the rim.
Possession arrow favors Team B. Do we use the ap arrow to put ball back into play?

My answer would be to penalize the foul on A1 and B2. Since B1's try failed to hit rim, violation. Use the arrow.

I need feed-back am I correct?

[Adam]

No arrow. POI is the violation. Give the ball to A.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Bchill24

B-1 is awarded one free throw. A1 and B2 commit a double personal foul. B1 try fails to hit the rim.
Possession arrow favors Team B. Do we use the ap arrow to put ball back into play?

My answer would be to penalize the foul on A1 and B2. Since B1's try failed to hit rim, violation. Use the arrow.

I need feed-back am I correct?

Double foul == go to POI.

Read 4-POI and you'll have your answer. (offerred in the spirit of "teach a man to fish")

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Bchill24

B-1 is awarded one free throw. A1 and B2 commit a double personal foul. B1 try fails to hit the rim.
Possession arrow favors Team B. Do we use the ap arrow to put ball back into play?

My answer would be to penalize the foul on A1 and B2. Since B1's try failed to hit rim, violation. Use the arrow.

I need feed-back am I correct?

1. I have to assume that the FT try is in flight at the time of the double personal foul. Otherwise, one would simply employ 4.19.8 Sit D.

2. The point that you are missing is that although an unsuccessful try for goal is in the air when the double foul occurs and thus neither team has team control, there is an obvious point of interruption with a FT attempt that fails to contact the ring. This is because this is a violation. Therefore your POI is the throw-in to which the opponent is entitled. That's what it says in 4-36-2b.

Had the missed FT try struck the ring or had the try been for FG during normal play, then the miss would not constitute a violation and there would be no obvious POI. Therefore, those situations would necessitate the use of the AP arrow.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Had the missed FT try struck the ring or had the try been for FG during normal play, then the miss would not constitute a violation and there would be no obvious POI.

Really? It seems to me that the miss *is* the obvious POI and 4-POI-3 (or whatever the specific reference is -- I'm away from my books) applies.

IOW, it's a misnomer to say "sometimes you go to the POI and sometimes you go to the arrow." What's correct is "you always use the POI and sometimes the POI is the arrow." (the above on a double foul, etc.)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Really? It seems to me that the miss *is* the obvious POI and 4-POI-3 (or whatever the specific reference is -- I'm away from my books) applies.

IOW, it's a misnomer to say "sometimes you go to the POI and sometimes you go to the arrow." What's correct is "you always use the POI and sometimes the POI is the arrow." (the above on a double foul, etc.)

Bob, I understand your point that the AP arrow is just the final part of the POI process, but above I was using the language of case book play 4.19.8 Sit E part (c).

"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."