Arrow oops!

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You got the administration under NFHS rules correct, but for the WRONG reason. You forgot that step B in the POI process gives the ball to a team if the stoppage occurred during a throw-in or the team is entitled to a throw-in. So that's the POI, not the AP arrow. Following the double foul DURING the throw-in, Team A is still entitled to an AP throw-in from before and the official can still fix the mistake of awarding the ball to the wrong team. So give the ball to Team A for an AP throw-in under 4-36-2b and 7.5.2 Sit A.

Your ruling for NCAA is incorrect because Team A would not retain the arrow following the official fixing the previous mistake and giving them their entitled AP throw-in.

NevadaRef:

NFHS: We are both correct. R4-S35-A1 defines what is a POI. R4-S36-A2c and R6-S4-A3g state the same thing: How the ball shall be put into play for a double foul when there is no team control when the foul occured.

NCAA: I am going to have to research what you have said, but it is 09:00amEDT and I have a 09:30amEDT at the H.S. for a delivery to the football stadium's concession stand. I will get back to you later.

Ta ta.

MTD, Sr.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

BUT NCAA rules: There IS team control during a throw-in. The double foul is a Point-of-Interruption (POI) with the penalty being a throw-in by the team in control of the ball nearest the spot where the ball was at the time of the double foul.

Just a minor comment. The team control issue in NCAA rules isn't really relevant here. When a throw-in is involved, as it is here, then the POI is simply another throw-in for the team that is making the original throw-in or is entitled to the throw-in (for a previous foul or violation, for example). That's NCAA 4-53-2c. It's essentially the same as the NFHS rule for POI during a throw-in (except for the shot clock element).

So while there is indeed team control during a throw-in in NCAA rules, it doesn't really matter to the adjudication of this play.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Just a minor comment. The team control issue in NCAA rules isn't really relevant here. When a throw-in is involved, as it is here, then the POI is simply another throw-in for the team that is making the original throw-in or is entitled to the throw-in (for a previous foul or violation, for example). That's NCAA 4-53-2c. It's essentially the same as the NFHS rule for POI during a throw-in (except for the shot clock element).

So while there is indeed team control during a throw-in in NCAA rules, it doesn't really matter to the adjudication of this play.

Scrapper:

I hope you meant NCAA R4-S53-A2a and not R4-S53-A2c? I am still working on my response to NevadaRef.

MTD, Sr.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I hope you meant NCAA R4-S53-A2a and not R4-S53-A2c?

Alas, your hope is misplaced. I did indeed mean 4-53-2c. 2c deals with the POI when it occurs during a throw-in, which is precisely the play we're dealing with.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Alas, your hope is misplaced. I did indeed mean 4-53-2c. 2c deals with the POI when it occurs during a throw-in, which is precisely the play we're dealing with.

Scrapper:

I see the throw-in connection, but 2a is more relevant because it deals directly with team control, which is a major part of our discussion.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I cannot find in either NFHS and NCAA rules books where it states that the when a team is awarded an AP Throw-in to which it is not entitled, this officials’ mistake can be rectified as long as it is discovered before the AP Throw-in ends. I guess if I was not looking for it I would have found it already.

I am not going to quote the appropriate rules, but the following NCAA rules are the pertinent rules references for the play being discovered:

R4-S2-A2: Defines when an AP Throw-in ends.

R4-S53-A1d: Defines a POI.

R4-S53-A2a: Defines who shall get the throw-in when after a double foul which was committed while there was team control of the ball.

R6-S3-A1f: Does not apply because there was team control when the ball became dead due to the double foul.

R7-S4-A1j: States that the ball shall be awarded out-of-bounds after a double foul.

R7-S5-A10: State that if a double foul occurs during team control, play shall resume at the POI.

RS6-A2: Defines when a throw-in ends. note: See R4-S2-A2.



Let us break the play down into its component parts:

1) Held ball occurs. AP Arrow correctly pointed towards Team A’s basket (or incorrectly pointed towards Team B’s basket).

2) Team B is (incorrectly) awarded the AP Throw-in due to the held ball in (1).

3) There is team control during Team B’s (incorrectly awarded) AP Throw-in.

4) There is a double foul before Team B’s (incorrectly awarded) AP Throw-in ends.

5) Team B’s (incorrectly awarded) AP Throw-in has not ended because the double foul occurred before the Team B’s (incorrectly awarded) AP Throw-in). Therefore the AP Arrow is not reversed.

6) A double foul is a POI by definition.

7) When a double foul occurs while there is team control, the team in control of the ball shall be awarded a throw-in. note: I see this as the first fly in the ointment in the play being discussed.

8) Can the officials’ mistake of incorrectly awarding Team B Team A’s AP Throw-in be corrected? ANSWER: Yes, because the AP Throw-in had not ended. note: And I see this as the second fly in the ointment.

NevadaRef’ has brought up a very good point: Assuming that Team A was correctly awarded the AP Throw-in in the first place, the POI of interruption was the AP Throw-in. Therefore, the ball will be put into play with Team A resuming its AP Throw-in. BUT Team B had control of the ball when the double foul occurred. AND that begs the question: What was the POI? (1) Team B’s (incorrectly) awarded AP Throw-in. HC-B might argue that the game officials should correct the AP Arrow to reflect that Team A will get the next AP Throw-in and that Team B should get the throw-in per the POI rule since it had team control when the double foul occurred. (2/NevadaRef’s position.) Correct the AP Arrow and Team A gets the ball for an AP Throw-in per the POI rule. (3/My original position.) Correct the AP Arrow, Team A gets the ball for a throw-in and retains the AP Arrow for the next jump ball situation.

There is absolutely no rule support for Position (1). Someone would have to be insane (Old School where are you when we need you?) to propose this solution.

After breaking down the play, which I didn’t do originally, I came to the same conclusion that NevadaRef did and that Team A’s throw-in is the original AP Throw-in it was entitled to in the beginning. I also talked with "The Preacher" and he agrees that Team A's POI throw-in is a AP Throw-in.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. This is why it is my humble opinion that the !@#$%$#!@#%$%^%^&&*%* Alternating Possession in an abomination upon the game and that we should go back to having real jump balls for all jump ball situtions.

P.P.S. Snaqs, you started this second mess, where are you?

[Adam]

Case 6.4.1D; but it says only it can't be corrected after the ball touches an inbounds player. It says nothing about the throwin being completed.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

P.P.S. Snaqs, you started this second mess, where are yoiu?

My car drove me to Midas this morning, and Midas said it would cost more to fix it than I think the car is worth. I've been shopping all day.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Case 6.4.1D; but it says only it can't be corrected after the ball touches an inbounds player. It says nothing about the throwin being completed.

Snaqs:

6.4.1D is implying that the error has to be recognized before the throw-in ends. See definition of when a throw-in ends. And remember what is "kinky" in Blazing Saddles.

MTD, Sr.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

team control, which is a major part of our discussion.

This is where we disagree, Mark. Team control is irrelevant to the discussion. The interruption occurred "during a throw-in". 2c deals with interruptions that occur "during a throw-in". It doesn't get any more on-point than that.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

This is why it is my humble opinion that the Alternating Possession in an abomination upon the game and that we should go back to having real jump balls for all jump ball situations.

I hope that you're kidding. I don't want to abolish all jump balls, just the ones that start the game and overtimes. Let's flip a coin, like they do in football, and soccer. I'll bring the coin. Heck, I'll even give the coin to the team that loses the toss. I'm sure that I'll be able to write it off on my taxes. I'll check with my accountant, from the firm of Cook, Books & Hyde, the next time I go to visit him in prison.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Snaqs:

6.4.1D is implying that the error has to be recognized before the throw-in ends. See definition of when a throw-in ends. And remember what is "kinky" in Blazing Saddles.

MTD, Sr.

There you go, then.

So, if the throwin is "interrupted" (for lack of a better term), the error can still be fixed. I'm not sure this logically follows from the case play. IOW, I don't find the implication obvious.

Not sure what this has to do with stampeding cattle, but ok.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

There you go, then.

So, if the throwin is "interrupted" (for lack of a better term), the error can still be fixed. I'm not sure this logically follows from the case play. IOW, I don't find the implication obvious.

Not sure what this has to do with stampeding cattle, but ok.

Snaqs:

First, Blazing Saddles. Your change in the orignal play was a stroke of evil genius to the point of being kinky per stampeding cattle through the Vatican and Hedly Lamar's response of "kinky."

Second, I am not sure which play to which you are applying NFHS Casebook Play 6.4.1D: The orginal play or your "kinky" () play?

MTD, Sr.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Snaqs:

First, Blazing Saddles. Your change in the orignal play was a stroke of evil genius to the point of being kinky per stampeding cattle through the Vatican and Hedly Lamar's response of "kinky."

You're too kind.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Second, I am not sure which play to which you are applying NFHS Casebook Play 6.4.1D: The orginal play or your "kinky" () play?

MTD, Sr.

Honestly, both. After reviewing the case play, I'm not so sure it's not too late for the original play to be corrected.

On my "kinky" play, I think it can be corrected since the throwin never touched an inbounds player.

ps: I'll be training airmen today, but I'll try to check in when I get a chance.