Did we get it right?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I take it that BktBallRef was merely emphasizing the importance of the order for this particular play. As posted, they got it right. If the foul had happened first, it would have been TC, dead ball, no shot.

Exactly. NVRef is just being his normal smartass know-it-all self.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by The R

Where else would you have the throwin from?

Throw-in is from the spot nearest the foul. POI has nothing to do with it.

[The R]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Throw-in is from the spot nearest the foul. POI has nothing to do with it.

I see what you are saying I was using POI because the game was interrupted. We are talking about the spot on the floor though.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by The R

I see what you are saying I was using POI because the game was interrupted. We are talking about the spot on the floor though.

Sure it was interrupted, just like any time you blow the whistle. But just for kicks, wouldn't the POI have been a throwin for the non-scoring team? Instead you rightly gave the ball to A at the spot of the foul.

[The R]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Sure it was interrupted, just like any time you blow the whistle. But just for kicks, wouldn't the POI have been a throwin for the non-scoring team? Instead you rightly gave the ball to A at the spot of the foul.

It would if scoring a basket is an interruption to the game.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by The R

It would if scoring a basket is an interruption to the game.

The point of POI is to put the ball back where it would have gone had the game not been interrupted. IOW, how do we move on as if it didn't happen. Every time POI is used (double fouls, accidental whistle, etc), that's the purpose. So the POI is not the result of the interruption.

In the play in question, the interruption is the foul, the POI is the basket and ensuing throwin.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by The R

Where else would you have the throwin from?

The spot nearest the foul.

POI is used only when there's a double foul, an inadvertant whistle, a correctable error, ...

It's not used when there's a single foul (except for most single non-flagrant T's in NCAA) or a false double foul, ....

So, it's not relevant in your play.

Terminology matters.

[The R]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The spot nearest the foul.

POI is used only when there's a double foul, an inadvertant whistle, a correctable error, ...

It's not used when there's a single foul (except for most single non-flagrant T's in NCAA) or a false double foul, ....

So, it's not relevant in your play.

Terminology matters.

I see what you mean. I was applying the literal sense of the word interruption from the definition of POI.

So no there was no application of POI by definition in the play.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

What if the foul didn't happen near the end-line?

Good point, bob.

If the foul by A2 took place in a location on the floor which would not result in a throw-in somewhere along the end line of Team B's backcourt, then the throw-in would simply be a designated-spot throw-in from the OOB location nearest to where the foul was committed.

That was something worth pointing out to people.

[cdaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

What if the foul didn't happen near the end-line?.

Oooo. Good question.

My gut says spot throw in from the appropriate spot determined by the location of the foul. BUT that would in a way permit the fouling team to gain an advantage, so to speak, of negating the advantage team B would have to run the endline after a made basket.

Gonna have to check the books on that. Dont have them at my desk.

[edit: serves me right to respond to the post before reading to the end of the thread to see if anyone answered the question. Thanks Nevada. -Clark]

[Adam]

Just to answer your point about the advantage; it's a wash. As an offense, would you rather have an endline throwin or a spot throwin on the sideline, further down court?