Throw-in, Double Foul

[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is complete or some other infraction occurs which supercedes the original infraction (and a double foul doesn't superceded the original infraction...it just temporarily interrupts it).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.

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

Not at all.

My point still remains. The statement about during FTs is superfluous. The original infraction and the activity related to is has not been completed. If the activity related to the original infraction is not complete, then it is involved in the new situation and the resolution to the new situation.

Rule 6-4-3 doesn't mention FTs at all (only infractions, goals, team control, and end of period). It stands on its own. Rule 4-36-2 mentions FTs. The fact that 6-4-3 doesn't and 4-36-2 does indicates that 4-36-2 is just a expanded listing of the situations that meet the requirements for 6-4-3.

[Back In The Saddle]

6-4-3 is specifically enumerating situations where an AP throw-in is used. It shouldn't even be mentioning free throws and when a team is entitled to a "normal" throw-in.

IMHO 6-4-3-g should be rewritten to read something along the lines of: "Double personal, double technical or simultaneous fouls occur and the point of interruption is an alternating possession throw-in. See 4-36-2."