POI and Referee Magazine case play

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

To me, though, it's a pretty clear rule when it says "the location of the ball is defined...."

That case play posted on the FED web site clarified the rule.....soooooooo, I'm not questioning that the rule is incorrect. Imo though, the logic used in the case play sureashell is faulty. That case play doesn't reflect the purpose and intent of having a POINT that relates to where the ball actually is when the POI is being used.

The only thing I can figger out is that they maybe let a coupla pointy-haired IAABO bosses onto the FED rules committee by accident.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The only thing I can figger out is that they maybe let a coupla pointy-haired IAABO bosses onto the FED rules committee by accident.

Hey? I don't even have a dog in this fight.

And by the way, the B stands for Basketball, not Blind. You won't find an IAABO patch on this guy:

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Hey? I don't even have a dog in this fight.

Close enough.....

[Kelvin green]

Now I am going to throw out my two cents...

I know we have POI by definition... but ...

What seems incongruent and inconsistent is that a double foul is the only place we dont take the ball out of bounds nearest to the spot of the foul..

I understand the ruling and understand POI but still... just something to make you wonder

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

Now I am going to throw out my two cents...

I know we have POI by definition... but ...

What seems incongruent and inconsistent is that a double foul is the only place we dont take the ball out of bounds nearest to the spot of the foul..

I understand the ruling and understand POI but still... just something to make you wonder

The same is also done on simultaneous fouls.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

What seems incongruent and inconsistent is that a double foul is the only place we dont take the ball out of bounds nearest to the spot of the foul..

I agree with this, Kelvin (understanding that it's also true of simultaneous fouls). This was actually a big deal when the POI rule came in. It took a long time for some officials to really absorb the fact that you didn't go to the spot of the fouls.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The same is also done on simultaneous fouls.

Only in theory

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr

The 2006-07 interpretation is WRONG!! please note that the Rules Committee references a rule that does not exist: R7-S5-A9; .

Mark:
I answered this earlier (see Post #38) You are wrong -- and you insist on repeating this as though if you say it enough it will be true. The rule cited existed when the case play was written. It has since been moved to 4-36-1 and 4-36-2a (definition of point of interruption).

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

Mark:
I answered this earlier (see Post #38) You are wrong -- and you insist on repeating this as though if you say it enough it will be true. The rule cited existed when the case play was written. It has since been moved to 4-36-1 and 4-36-2a (definition of point of interruption).

BayStateRef:

You just made my point. A reference to a rule that does not exist, a reference to a rule that does not apply, and a reference to a rule that is off by one (1) article (the correct article being R4-S36-A2a) and the ruling does not follow the correct article (R4-S36-A2a) that states where the throw-in shall be taken.

MTD, Sr.

[Scrapper1]

So, uh, what'd you hear from Mary?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

So, uh, what'd you hear from Mary?

Scrapper:

To be honest, I haven't made the time to email Mary, because of more important family business. But I will get to it somethime this school year.

MTD, Sr.