Need help on POI interp

[Scratch85]

I believe you are correct, POI is the team A throw-in.

4-36-2(c) is written for situations where there is no team control and no obvious point of interruption. Such as a missed try. In your situation, you have an obvious POI. The double Foul, which is an infraction, is the obvious POI and should be ruled from that point. Giving you 4-36-2(b). The obvious interruption (infraction) occured during the throw-in.

No case play that I know of.

IMO, you're not out of line to challenge "pool heads" but it is dangerous. Remain diplomatic when you disagree.

[Back In The Saddle]

Try 2.10.1 SITUATION E. The premise is different (correctable error v. double foul), but the relevant part of the situation is the same, the interrupting event occurs while the ball is at Team A's disposal for a throw-in. Ruling? "The point of interruption is the throw-in for Team A."

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Try 2.10.1 SITUATION E. The premise is different (correctable error v. double foul), but the relevant part of the situation is the same, the interrupting event occurs while the ball is at Team A's disposal for a throw-in. Ruling? "The point of interruption is the throw-in for Team A."

Good one. Another is 4.19.8 SITUATION D:
A1 has possession of the ball and is about to attempt the first of a one-and-one free-throw situation when A4 and B4 are whistled for a double foul. RULING: A4 and B4 are charged with personal fouls and play shall resume from the point of interruption. A1 receives the ball to attempt the one-and- one free throw with the lane spaces properly occupied. (4-36-2b; 7-5-3b)

This proves we can have a POI where the ball stays with the original team without team control. And that is where some of our pool is having trouble. They seem to think that because there is no team control during a throw-in, possession must go to the arrow on a double foul. However, they say that it would stay with the original team for an inadvertent whistle or on a free-throw, because it’s just common sense.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Vinski

Good one. Another is 4.19.8 SITUATION D:
A1 has possession of the ball and is about to attempt the first of a one-and-one free-throw situation when A4 and B4 are whistled for a double foul. RULING: A4 and B4 are charged with personal fouls and play shall resume from the point of interruption. A1 receives the ball to attempt the one-and- one free throw with the lane spaces properly occupied. (4-36-2b; 7-5-3b)

This proves we can have a POI where the ball stays with the original team without team control. And that is where some of our pool is having trouble. They seem to think that because there is no team control during a throw-in, possession must go to the arrow on a double foul. However, they say that it would stay with the original team for an inadvertent whistle or on a free-throw, because it’s just common sense.

There is no team control when a thrower has the ball in his possession before attempting a free throw?

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

There is no team control when a thrower has the ball in his possession before attempting a free throw?

Oops. Good catch. I forgot there is team control during the free throw(when the shooter has the ball). So that sitch I discribed will not help my case.

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by Vinski

This proves we can have a POI where the ball stays with the original team without team control. And that is where some of our pool is having trouble. They seem to think that because there is no team control during a throw-in, possession must go to the arrow on a double foul. However, they say that it would stay with the original team for an inadvertent whistle or on a free-throw, because it’s just common sense.

It's really more simple than that. 4-36-2(b) applies to your situation. 4-36-2(c) does not apply to your situation. You have an infraction (double foul) and 4-36-2(c) applies when you have no TC and no infraction (among other things.)

It just simply does not apply.

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

IMO, you're not out of line to challenge "pool heads" but it is dangerous. Remain diplomatic when you disagree.

Agreed. I have a good schedule this year. I'd like to keep it.