Need help on POI interp

[Vinski]

I know this is a bit winded, but I request your honest comments. (I can take it)

The other day in our pool meeting, we were reviewing a question in our study club…

Question: Team A is making a throw-in after a violation, and a double personal foul is called
during the throw-in. Because there is no team control until a throw-in has ended, which team
should get the ball?
Answer: In this situation, if there was a throw-in and the ball was at the disposal of the thrower,
then 4-36-2b which states: Play shall be resumed with a free throw or a throw-in when the
interruption occurred during this activity or if a team is entitled to such, would apply. If the throwin
had ended and Team A was in control, then 4-36-2 which states: Play shall be resumed with a
throw-in to the team that was in control at a spot nearest to where the ball was located when the
interruption occurred, would apply.

To me this is saying that Team A retains the throw in. However, most of our pool leaders seemed to think that it should be an AP throw-in, sighting 4-36-2c. I argued that if this were true then an official’s accidental whistle during a throw-in would also mean an AP throw-in in this situation. That could mean the other team might get the ball, because of the officials screw up. Their rebuttal was that you would not do that because it’s a common sense issue. I said so is giving the ball to the original throw-in team during a double foul.
Rule (4-36) encompasses both situations. I am still fairly new to the pool so, I let it go. It was obvious the “vets” felt they were right and didn’t want to talk about it anymore.
I looked through everything I can in the rule book and case book and there are plenty of scenarios that confirm my interpretation to a degree. But nothing that gives the exact scenario and says in clear plain English that Team A with retain the throw-in and that throw-in is the POI.

So, my questions to the forum are…
1) Am I correct that the POI is the Team A throw-in?
2) Is there an interp or clarification out there anywhere or a case book sitch I may have missed that clearly spells this out?
3) Am I out of line or is it dangerous to my officiating carrier to challenge our pool heads on rule interpretations like this? Should I just nod and keep my mouth shut?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Vinski

So, my questions to the forum are…
1) Am I correct that the POI is the Team A throw-in?

1) I think you are correct. If the inadvertant whistle was during the throw-in, the A gets the ball back. If it was after the throw-in, then the ball goes to the team in control, or to the AP arrow, if no team was in control.

[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."

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Vinski

So, my questions to the forum are…
1) Am I correct that the POI is the Team A throw-in?

Yes, as per 4-36-2b.

Originally Posted by Vinski

2) Is there an interp or clarification out there anywhere or a case book sitch I may have missed that clearly spells this out?

The closest I can find is the interp from the 2006-2007 season:
SITUATION 3: Post players A5 and B5 are called for a double personal foul while the ball is in the air on a three-point try for goal by A1. RULING: There is no team control while a try for goal is in flight, and the ball does not become dead until the try ends. If the try is unsuccessful, there is no obvious point of interruption. Play will be resumed with an alternating possession throw-in nearest the location where the ball was located when it became dead, which will typically be on the end line. Had the try been successful, the point of interruption would have been a throw-in for Team B from anywhere along the end line. (4-4-3; 4-36; 6-4-3g; 7-5-9)

This is a good example of how just because there is no team control (the shot is in the air), you could still have a POI other than an AP throw-in (normal endline throw-in if the shot is successful).

Originally Posted by Vinski

3) Am I out of line or is it dangerous to my officiating carrier to challenge our pool heads on rule interpretations like this? Should I just nod and keep my mouth shut?

Sometimes yes, and sometimes no.

It still suprises me that there are a number of officials that do not understand POI. It is totally your call as to how you want to handle your "experts", but have them explain why 4-36-2b does not apply, and how the second part of 4-36-2c does not apply "...and no goal, infraction, or end of period is involved".

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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 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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Vinski

So, my questions to the forum are…
1) Am I correct that the POI is the Team A throw-in?
2) Is there an interp or clarification out there anywhere or a case book sitch I may have missed that clearly spells this out?
3) Am I out of line or is it dangerous to my officiating carrier to challenge our pool heads on rule interpretations like this? Should I just nod and keep my mouth shut?

1. You are 100% correct. I don't think that. I KNOW it.
2. This was a rule change in the 2005-06 season. The comment in the back of the rules book for that revision made it clear. As has already been posted, the Case Book does not have a play for a double foul during a throw-in, but does have one for during a FT. It is 4.19.8 Sit D. The ruling is to resume at the POI with the same FT attempt and the citation given is 4-36-2b. However, as there is both player and team control during this situation, this is problematic. In fact, the priority of the a, b, c POI application is disturbed. If we were to go with a and apply the administration set forth therein, then we would skip the FT and resume with a throw-in. So it seems that the NFHS needs to reverse a and b in 4-36. The throw-in or FT activity has to take precedence over the team control factor.
3. You are not out of line, but it probably would be dangerous to your advancement in that area to tell these vets that they are dead wrong. You would be correct, but probably not wise. I feel sorry for you to have to deal with idiots such as those.