POI and Referee Magazine case play

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Fwiw, I don't agree that the FED English is "plain" either.

I know. Hence, me being "astounded".

[Adam]

It seems to me that when the FED changed to POI on double fouls, they ran across the problem of needing to define something that hadn't previously been an issue; the physical location of a ball in flight. They'd had to define it's status for BC/FC issues, but defined "location" hadn't come up. Now, with POI, they needed something.

Well, what do you know, the definition of status fits pretty well, and it works as well as anything. They stuck with a rule they had in the book already instead of making some awkward distinction between status and location.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Well, what do you know, the definition of status fits pretty well, and it works as well as anything.

Gee, I think that maybe....just maybe....some officials might just have the capability to actually figure out the closest OOB location to an airborne ball when the whistle blows. And if you do have to guess, don't forget that you're making the exact same kind of guess when you locate the spot of the origin of the pass. Spot location of the throw-in would be just as accurate in both cases anyway. It ain't freaking brain surgery.

Riddle me this....if the ball was passed from just over center and it was almost (but still untouched) to a player on the endline when a double foul occurred, are you locating the subsequent throw-in at center?

As I said, locating a Point of Interruption at a POINT where the ball WASN'T when play was INTERRUPTED makes zero sense to me.

However, it is what it is.

[Adam]

Ah, but some people don't like being left to their common sense, JR. Others just shouldn't be left to their common sense. And some don't have common sense to use. Since everything needs to be defined, here we are....

If it's close enough I can't tell which happened first, I'll assume the player touched the ball before the double foul. If it's far enough that a 10 second call would be warranted if the situation were right, I'd go back to the release point.

That's just me, though.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

If it's close enough I can't tell which happened first, I'll assume the player touched the ball before the double foul. If it's far enough that a 10 second call would be warranted if the situation were right, I'd go back to the release point.

That's just me, though.

I'm glad that's just you. I can't figure out how you could get a 10 second call on a ball passed from the front court to another spot in the front court. But that's just me, though.

Try your logic on these:

1) A1 has a throw-in on the endline under their own basket. B1, standing just inbounds guarding the throw-in, tips the ball on the throw-in. The ball goes into A's backcourt, and just before the ball lands and bounces just over the FT line in the lane, a double foul is committed. By rule, the throw-in has to go back to where B1 touched the ball, correct? Throw-in on the endline under A's basket, correct?

2) Exact same play, but the double foul is committed just after the ball bounces just over the FT line in the lane in A's backcourt....now, by rule, you locate the throw-in on the endline under team B's basket on the endline, correct?

Maybe somebody(like Scrappy ShortPants) can explain the logic to me of locating the throw-in at different ends of the court in these almost identical plays.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I'm glad that's just you. I can't figure out how you could get a 10 second call on a ball passed from the front court to another spot in the front court. But that's just me, though.

Ah, that's the reason for my qualifier, "if the situation were right."

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Try your logic on these:

1) A1 has a throw-in on the endline under their own basket. B1, standing just inbounds guarding the throw-in, tips the ball on the throw-in. The ball goes into A's backcourt, and just before the ball lands and bounces just over the FT line in the lane, a double foul is committed. By rule, the throw-in has to go back to where B1 touched the ball, correct? Throw-in on the endline under A's basket, correct?

Yup, I'm with you so far.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

2) Exact same play, but the double foul is committed just after the ball bounces just over the FT line in the lane in A's backcourt....now, by rule, you locate the throw-in on the endline under team B's basket on the endline, correct?

By rule, yes.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Maybe somebody(like Scrappy ShortPants) can explain the logic to me of locating the throw-in at different ends of the court in these almost identical plays.

I'm not saying I don't agree with you when it comes to how I'd prefer to see it done. Your way makes more sense, to be honest. To me, though, it's a pretty clear rule when it says "the location of the ball is defined...."

Frankly, I think the committee just didn't care enough about this to add another definition changing the location of the ball for POI purposes.

[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.