Throw-in, Double Foul
 

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.

What's the ruling?
__________________________

I say report the double foul and then give the ball back to Team A for a throw-in via POI, since the throw-in never ended.

Another says report the double foul and then go AP.

What's the ruling?

Fed Rules: 6-4-3g

It's AP if a double personal foul occurs and the POI is such that neither team is in control and no goal, infraction, nor end of quarter/extra period is involved. (It's a throw-in, so there is no team control)

The other person is right. Go to the arrow.

Seems to me you are punishing the throw-in team since they never completed their throw-in. What about 4-36-2b?

That rule just talks about POI. You still inbound the ball at the POI, but the AP determines who gets to throw it in at the POI.

Yes, but 4-36-1 says:
Method of resuming play due to ... a double personal foul... .

Play shall be resumed by one of the following methods:
a. ...
b. A free throw or a throw-in when the interruption occurred during this activity or if a team is entitled to such.
c. AP (which is basically 6-4-3g again)


To me, the throw-in was still occurring when the infraction took place. The throw-in was never touched by Team A or Team B. Why can't you go back to it?

Just having a hard time buying you go AP. To me, you punish the throw-in team.

If Team A has the arrow and just scores a bucket. Team B on their throw-in releases the ball without anyone touching it, B4 and A4 get banged with a double foul, you're giving the ball to Team A via the AP. Seems like they gain a huge advantage.

Buzzzz. Thanks for playing.

The ball goes back to A for a throw-in. The AP arrow does not figure into this at all.

NFHS 4-36-2-b "A free throw or a throw-in when the interruption occurred during this activity or if a team is entitled to such."

The interruption occurred during the throw-in. The POI is the throw-in.

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. :confused:

Thanks, BITS. I was using the situation above to try and convince him - wasn't buying it.

Now, zm1283. I totally agree with you had the throw-in ended.

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.

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?

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

"What would've happened if the whistle had not blown?"
 

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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?

Because it's listed right in your NFHS rulebook as Basketball Fundamental #2.

It's my personal opinion that the NCAA acted too quickly because they wanted to include throw-in fouls as team control fouls. (Which is not the worst idea ever. I don't think it's completely necessary, but I can see the reason for wanting it.) The easiest way to do that seemed to be to have team control during throw-ins. So that's what they did. Of course, they then had to make lots of other changes (like to the backcourt rule), that made it not really so easy, after all.

A better way to accomplish what they wanted to do would have been simply to change the definition of team control fouls to include throw-in fouls. Just like for a PC foul after the ball has been released. Is there really player control? No. But we still consider it to be a player control foul. I think this would've been a better solution to the team control foul issue.

But nobody asked me. :shrug:

And what a throw-in foul should be? Until the end of the throw-in? Certainly not, because the ball could be only deflected. So? :)

Of course in FIBA rules there's team control during a throw-in (and you can't pass in the backcourt if the throw-in is in the frontcourt).

Ciao

Excellent question, but it has a very easy solution. I never meant to invent a new class of fouls called "throw-in fouls". You'd have to say that a team control foul occurs when a member of the throw-in team commits a common foul during the throw-in and until the ball is controlled inbounds.

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. :D[/QUOTE]


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

I'd do this differently, and say until the throwin ends. I like the idea of a "loose ball" foul with neither team in control if the ball's been tipped and there's a scrum.

That's why I said it was my humble opinion. I think it's a terrible idea to mess with the fundamental rules of the game for a once-in-a-blue-moon play.

6-4-3g needs to be re-written to provide additional clarification for the throw in. Whether that constitutes including the exception for throw-ins within 6-4-3g or just directing the reader to 4-36-2b, I couldn't care less, but the rule is misleading as it is currently written.

I would have to agree Fiasco!

Not trying to be a wise guy, but what's misleading about it? Use the AP arrow when there's a double or simultaneous foul and there no team control and there's no other infraction, goal or end of period involved. That seems pretty clear to me, I guess.

:confused:The misleading thing is that this doesn't apply to the throw in. On a throw-in, you don't go AP if there's a double foul. But that's not explained in 6-4-3g.

Because there is no team control on a throw-in, and it says
"Use the AP arrow when there's a double or simultaneous foul and there no team control "
But if you look at the other part of the book it says unless it's a free throw or a throw in!

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.

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.

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).

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.

Ok...just making sure.
 

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.

Domino Effect ???
 

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

Thanks for adding credence to Scrappy's point ;)

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.

Answers: b & d.
(NFHS 4-36-2b, 7-5-7b; NCAA 4-53-2c, 7-5-6, 7-5-10)

Well, at least they got one right.

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.

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."