POI and Referee Magazine case play

[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.

[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.