Throw-in, Double Foul

[Back In The Saddle]

So I'm bemused by the constant confusion over when to go to the AP. The AP is the last resort for POI. Yet so often I hear people wanting to make it the first choice.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

So I'm bemused by the constant confusion over when to go to the AP. The AP is the last resort for POI. Yet so often I hear people wanting to make it the first choice.

Excellent point, BITS. It's listed last in 4-36-2 for a reason. That is, if the play doesn't meet the other two then you go AP.

I think the problem is when dealing with doubles the first question that is asked is whether or not there was team control. If there isn't, they automatically want to resort to the AP.

Then again, maybe not. But that's the only thing I can come up with.

[zm1283]

So when does 6-4-3g apply? It says that when double personal, double technical, or simultaneous fouls occur, and AP throw-in is used when there is no team control and no goal, infraction, nor end of quarter/extra period is involved. I'm just asking for clarification.

Also, in what situation would you use the AP for a double foul if this situation doesn't meet that criteria?

[Back In The Saddle]

You really have to read it in light of 4-36, which gives a much more complete view of POI.

[BillyMac]

Scrapper1 posted this a few weeks ago. I haven't had time to go through all the various permutations, but I think it works:

If the double foul happens:
a) during a free throw or throwin, you resume with the free throw or throwin;
b) after a foul or violation, then you resume by administering the penalty for the foul or violation;
c) while the ball's in play and there's team control, then you simply give a throwin to the team in control;
d) when there is no team control, and there's no way to know who would have gotten the ball, then,
and only then, you go to the possession arrow.

It's actually really simple. Just ask yourself, "What would've happened if the whistle had not blown?" If you answer that you don't know, then go to the possession arrow. Otherwise, just do what you were going to do next anyway.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by zm1283

So when does 6-4-3g apply? It says that when double personal, double technical, or simultaneous fouls occur, and AP throw-in is used when there is no team control and no goal, infraction, nor end of quarter/extra period is involved. I'm just asking for clarification.

Also, in what situation would you use the AP for a double foul if this situation doesn't meet that criteria?

There was an infraction (or goal) involved, just prior to the double foul. That's why you had the throwin to begin with.

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by zm1283

So when does 6-4-3g apply? It says that when double personal, double technical, or simultaneous fouls occur, and AP throw-in is used when there is no team control and no goal, infraction, nor end of quarter/extra period is involved. I'm just asking for clarification.

Also, in what situation would you use the AP for a double foul if this situation doesn't meet that criteria?

Here are 2 examples of AP on double foul.
1) A1 releases the ball for a try. Player/Team control has ended. A2 and B2 are called for a Double Foul and the basket is not made. No team control was ever reestablished, thus AP Throw-in.
2) A1 releases the ball on a throw-in. The ball is touched (no Control) by a player. Throw-in has ended. The ball is loose. A2 and B2 scramble for the ball and they are whistled for a Double Foul. No team control was ever reestablished, thus AP Throw-in.

[jritchie]

This is exactly the reason nfhs should change the rule to match the college level ruling where there is team control when OOB. This would clear up so much of the confusion. This play is messed up all of the time because of the confusion! We just talked about it on sunday in our meeting and it was told that "no team control on the throw in, if you have a double foul during it, go to the arrow!" So now we will have to go back and touch on that play again!

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by jritchie

This is exactly the reason nfhs should change the rule to match the college level ruling where there is team control when OOB.

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.

We just talked about it on sunday in our meeting and it was told that "no team control on the throw in, if you have a double foul during it, go to the arrow!"

This is exactly the reason your board needs a new interpreter.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

How can you call this one of the fundamentals of basketball and a basic definition of the game if the college level considers it part of the game?

[jritchie]

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.

MUST NOT BE TO BAD OF A CHANGE IF THE NCAA THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA!



[/QUOTE]This is exactly the reason your board needs a new interpreter. [/QUOTE]


I surely wouldn't argue with that one! New Assignor this year, going to be fun!

[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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I'm bemused by the constant confusion over when to go to the AP. The AP is the last resort for POI. Yet so often I hear people wanting to make it the first choice.

I, too, wonder why this seems to be a source of common misunderstanding. I think people are so focused on the fact that there's no team control (and it's GREAT that officials recognize this) that they forget that we have to consider the basket or infraction involved, which caused the throw-in in the first place.

As Billy posted above, I think that the POI rule is actually very easy to administer once you know the definition. You just have to remember that there are 3 parts to the definition.