Poi?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by referee99

no monsieur. not the french!

Poi is Hawaiian, not French.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Poi is Hawaiian, not French.

Mahalo.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Poi is Hawaiian, not French.

You can only have poi in the game if you accompany it with a crab dribble.

[eyezen]

Remember in NFHS there is no team control during a throw in so in a) you also have a AP throw in 6-4-3-g

[Adam]

Originally Posted by eyezen

Remember in NFHS there is no team control during a throw in so in a) you also have a AP throw in 6-4-3-g

I'm assuming 6-4-3g has the throwin over (ball legally touched) but team control not yet established. Right?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by eyezen

Remember in NFHS there is no team control during a throw in so in a) you also have a AP throw in 6-4-3-g

In the original situation, the throw-in pass was "approaching" the 2 players, so it had not been touched inbounds. That means that the throw-in hadn't ended; and that means that the POI is a new throw-in to the team that just threw the ball in.

If the ball had been touched before the double foul, then we would have no team control and NOT during the throw-in, so we would go to the arrow.

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

In the original situation, the throw-in pass was "approaching" the 2 players, so it had not been touched inbounds. That means that the throw-in hadn't ended; and that means that the POI is a new throw-in to the team that just threw the ball in.

If the ball had been touched before the double foul, then we would have no team control and NOT during the throw-in, so we would go to the arrow.

I don't see where touching is relevant here, when the ball is at disposal, there is no team control during the throw in. If a double foul occurs before team control is established the you need to go to the arrow. Touching is only relevant to determine where the ball would be put in at.

Not entirely the same, but bear with me. During a shot attempt a double foul occurs do you not go to the arrow for the subsequent throw-in? Why? Because team control is not established. During a throw in would be the same. At disposal, no one has team control, so subsequent throw in is via the AP.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by eyezen

I don't see where touching is relevant here, when the ball is at disposal, there is no team control during the throw in. If a double foul occurs before team control is established the you need to go to the arrow. Touching is only relevant to determine where the ball would be put in at.

Not entirely the same, but bear with me. During a shot attempt a double foul occurs do you not go to the arrow for the subsequent throw-in? Why? Because team control is not established. During a throw in would be the same. At disposal, no one has team control, so subsequent throw in is via the AP.

Read 4-36-2a defintion of Point of Interruption

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Read 4-36-2a defintion of Point of Interruption

I did, it says "A throw in to the team that was in control at a spot nearest to where the ball was located when the interuption occured".

Which team is that during a throw in?

[Adam]

In case your rule book isn't handy, eyezen, the definition of POI says if the interrupting event occurs during a throwin, the POI is the throwin.

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

In the original situation, the throw-in pass was "approaching" the 2 players, so it had not been touched inbounds. That means that the throw-in hadn't ended; and that means that the POI is a new throw-in to the team that just threw the ball in.

I agree if the original throw in was an AP throw in. The original AP throw in had not completed.

eyezen, I fought this same battle on the board a little while back & got KO'd early. After re-reading POI & maybe viewing a couple of case plays you'll see they are right.

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

eyezen, I fought this same battle on the board a little while back & got KO'd early. After re-reading POI & maybe viewing a couple of case plays you'll see they are right.

It's not a battle. Its a civil discussion. And I could be wrong. Which case plays? I'll be more than happy to read them.