Throw-in, Double Foul

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Interesting, ok. I see your point. It refers to no control and to a goal, infraction, or end of period being involved, but doesn't mention the caveat about "during a free throw or throw-in". Basically, they referenced two-thirds of the POI definition and then left out the last third.

Exactamundo.

I had the same reaction as the OP when I first was presented with this scenario. Upon first thought, I was pretty sure it should be AP, so I went to the rule book. The way that rule reads, I felt justified in my answer, so I stopped looking. Therein lies the problem.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Interesting, ok. I see your point. It refers to no control and to a goal, infraction, or end of period being involved, but doesn't mention the caveat about "during a free throw or throw-in". Basically, they referenced two-thirds of the POI definition and then left out the last third.

But it does...

The reason for all free-throws is an infraction and the reason for most throwins is an infraction or a made goal.

So, an infraction or goal is involved in most throwins.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The reason for all free-throws is an infraction and the reason for most throwins is an infraction or a made goal.

So, an infraction or goal is involved in most throwins.

I understand your point, but that's not really what the rule means by saying a goal or infraction is involved, IMHO.

Say you've blown the whistle for a travel. While you're giving the signal, 2 guys foul each other. There's no control, so you might think that you need to use the arrow. But since the travel was the last thing to happen before the double foul, that's where you resume.

Now, change it slightly. You've blown the whistle for the travel and bounced the ball to the inbounder. NOW two guys foul each other. Still no control, but now to complicate it, the last thing to happen before the double foul was NOT the infraction. It was the start of a throw-in. That's why there's a provision for a throw-in when the interruption occurs during a throw-in; because the interruption didn't really occur right after the infraction; there really isn't any infraction "involved" in that interruption.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I understand your point, but that's not really what the rule means by saying a goal or infraction is involved, IMHO.

Say you've blown the whistle for a travel. While you're giving the signal, 2 guys foul each other. There's no control, so you might think that you need to use the arrow. But since the travel was the last thing to happen before the double foul, that's where you resume.

Now, change it slightly. You've blown the whistle for the travel and bounced the ball to the inbounder. NOW two guys foul each other. Still no control, but now to complicate it, the last thing to happen before the double foul was NOT the infraction. It was the start of a throw-in. That's why there's a provision for a throw-in when the interruption occurs during a throw-in; because the interruption didn't really occur right after the infraction; there really isn't any infraction "involved" in that interruption.

"Inovolved" doesn't end just because the throwin begins. Involved has a larger scope than just at the time of the last whistle.

This is not that much different than the case play where an AP throwin is given to the wrong team but is caught and whistled dead prior to the ball being touched inbounds.

The "involved" part continues until the penalty for the infraction is complete or some other infraction occurs which supercedes the original infraction (and a double foul doesn't superceded the original infraction...it just temporarily interrupts it).

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

"Inovolved" doesn't end just because the throwin begins. Involved has a larger scope than just at the time of the last whistle.

The "involved" part continues until the penalty for the infraction is complete or some other infraction occurs which supercedes the original infraction

If this were true, Camron, there would be no need to say that the POI is a free throw if the interruption occurs during a free throw, because a free throw is always preceded by an infraction.

As I said, JMO, but I think you're reaching on this one.

[tjones1]

A3 and B2 are whistled for a held ball. The AP is pointed towards Team A.

Now, lets apply the same situation.

Team A has the ball for a throw-in. A1 is the thrower. After A1 releases the ball and while the ball is still in the air (untouched by B and A), a double foul is called on B3 and A2.

So, POI is to give the ball back to Team A for a throw-in (4-36-2b) as their AP throw-in did not end.

A1 has the ball again for throw-in. The ball is legally touched by A3. Does the AP arrow change?

I say, yes. However, reading 6.4.5 Situation A Comment I am doubting my reasoning. Thanks again for helping and clarifying.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This is a terrible reason to change the team control rules. It's really just not that difficult. During a throw-in, resume with a throw-in. After the throw-in ends, then you have to determine if there's control. Changing one the most basic definitions of the game is a bad idea. We shouldn't be messing with our basic definitions and the "Basketball Fundamentals" because of one play that happens once a season.

If we changed NFHS rules to include team control during the throwin, wouldn't we also have to change the rules for the following situations:

During a throwin, even under a team’s own basket, if the throwin is deflected, tipped, or batted by an offensive player in the frontcourt to an offensive player in the backcourt; this not a backcourt violation. Team control, a player holding or dribbling the ball, has not yet been established.

During a throwin, any player may legally jump from his or her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor, and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or the backcourt. This is not a backcourt violation.

[tjones1]

Re: Post #36

Nevermind, with a little help from a board veteran, I was pointed to this thread http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tml#post507253 where my orginal thoughts were confirmed.

The ensuing throw-in is an AP throw-in. Change the arrow.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

If this were true, Camron, there would be no need to say that the POI is a free throw if the interruption occurs during a free throw, because a free throw is always preceded by an infraction.

As I said, JMO, but I think you're reaching on this one.

Saying the POI is the FT is not a necessary statement. IIRC, it was added later as an editorial clarification. That would confirm my interpretation.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Saying the POI is the FT is not a necessary statement. IIRC, it was added later as an editorial clarification. That would confirm my interpretation.

That's not the case. The POI definition was first added in the '05-'06 rulebook. It was exactly the same as it appears now.

I hope you realize that I'm not trying to be picky just to annoy you. I'm just trying to follow-up on your point.

[jritchie]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

If we changed NFHS rules to include team control during the throwin, wouldn't we also have to change the rules for the following situations:

During a throwin, even under a team’s own basket, if the throwin is deflected, tipped, or batted by an offensive player in the frontcourt to an offensive player in the backcourt; this not a backcourt violation. Team control, a player holding or dribbling the ball, has not yet been established.

During a throwin, any player may legally jump from his or her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor, and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or the backcourt. This is not a backcourt violation.

Not really, all they would have to change is the last statement in the first one , "Team control has not yet been established." All it would be then is a stipulation on throw ins in both 1st and 2nd statement. IMO

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

If we changed NFHS rules to include team control during the throwin, wouldn't we also have to change the rules for the following situations:

I don't think you'd have to change those very much, but you would have to change the much more basic play of making a throw-in pass directly into the backcourt.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I don't think you'd have to change those very much, but you would have to change the much more basic play of making a throw-in pass directly into the backcourt.

Just like FIBA!

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Just like FIBA!

Thanks for adding credence to Scrappy's point

[referee99]

As if on cue.
Referee Magazine, page 22, "Test Yourself"

2. After a goal by team A, B1 is holding the ball out of bounds on the endline for the ensuing throw-in. Before the throw-in ends, A2 and B3 are called for a double foul near the division line. How shall play continue?
a. Alternating possession throw-in.
b. Team B shall receive the throw-in.
c. The throw-in shall be nearest the spot of the foul.
d. The throw-in shall be anywhere along the endline where the original throw-in was to occur.
e. The throw-in shall be at a designated spot along the endline where the original throw-in was to occur.