double personal foul
 

Heres the situation: Lead gives ball to A1 for throw in(ball becomes live), then sees two girls push each other and blows whistle, double personal foul. I say we go to arrow, then point of interruption. Guy that blew whistle has no idea, and my partner says no arrow, point of interuption only. Heres what I find in the rule book...please help.

Rule 10 summary states that a double personal foul and double technical foul go to point of interruption...mentions nothing about the arrow.

Rule 4 section 12 art. 6 it states neither team contol nor player control exists during a dead ball, throw-in, a jump ball or when the ball is in flight during a try or tap for goal.

Rule 4 section 36 art 2c (point of interruption) states an alternating-possesion throw-in when neither team is in control and no goal, infraction, nor end of quarter/extra perios is involved when the game is interrupted.

Are there any other rules that may clarify better? Please let me know whos correct, we have a game tomorrow night and we want to get this straight. Thanks in advance~~

POI would be resuming with the throw-in which was interrupted according to 4-36-2b. You probably skipped over that rule.

Im not sure that explains what Im looking for...

Art 2: Play shall be resumed by one of the following methods:

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

It wasnt a free throw so that means its a throw in, but do we go to the arrow?~

Even though there is no team control during a throw-in, Team A is still in control of the ball.

We do NOT got to the arrow. The POI is the throw-in for team A. Team A keeps the ball for a new throw-in.

Thank you...I guess in a round about way they try to make sense of it. But I wish they would do away with the fact that their is no team control during a throw in then, make it less confusing!! Thanks again~

Team control isn't an issue. Point of interruption mean what were we doing when the ball became dead? We were in the middle of a throw-in. So we go back to that throw-in.

This rule tells you to return to either the free throw OR the throw-in which was interrupted. The AP arrow has nothing to do with it. :)

So I just looked in the Rules by Topic book and under Throw-Ins (topic 6)

Alternate-possession throw ins shall be from the out-of-bounds spot nearest to where the ball was located. An alternating-possesion throw-in shall result:

Double personal, double technical or simultaneous fouls occur and the point of interruption is such that neither team is in control and no goal, infraction, nor end of quarter/extra period is involved (6-4-3a-g;7-3).

Since during a throw in, the rule clearly states there is no team control, then why wouldnt we go to the arrow?

Is 'such that neither team is in control' and 'no team control' the same thing? I think thats where Im splitting hairs.

I am sorry to be a pain but I am a trainer with an association and I know most of the people are under the assumption we go to alternate-possesion, I need to be very clear in explaining the correct way. ~~

The Rules by Topic book is a new concept that the NFHS started in 2006-07.

Consequently there are still some kinks in it which need to be worked out. The first year that it was published it was riddled with errors. So I'm not a big fan of this book.

However, in your case, rather than an outright error, I believe that you are just not taking what is written in the proper context. You are reading the section under "Topic: Alternating Possession" so all of the accompanying text assumes that the situation is one for which it is proper to award an alternating possession throw-in. You need to move forward in the book to "Topic: Point of Interruption" and read what it says there. It clearly states, "When point of interruption is required, play shall be resumed by...a free throw or a throw-in when the point of interruption occurred during this activity or if a team is entitled to such..."

BktBallRef is exactly right, POI simply means you go back to what you were doing before you were interrupted. This is absolutely not the same concept as the inadvertent whistle rule. The rule book uses a couple of phrases I find helpful in explaining the concept of POI: "play shall be resumed from the point of interruption" or "continued from the point of interruption." In other words, you were doing something, you got interrupted, now you're going to go back to what you were doing before the interruption.

Perhaps your explanation can be made clearer by breaking down POI like this: The POI definition (NFHS 4-36-2) tells us how to resume play in three specific situations.

Situation 1: The ball is live and clearly in team control. Play is resumed by giving the ball back to the team in control for a throw-in at the spot nearest where the ball was when the interruption occurred.

Situation 2: The ball is dead and we were about to make it live in one of the three possible ways (NFHS 6-1-1): a free throw, a throw-in or a *jump ball; or the ball had just become live via one of those three methods (NFHS 6-1-2), but the activity was interrupted before it ended (NFHS 4-20-3, 4-42-5, 4-28-3 respectively); or something just happened during play and by rule the next activity is a free throw or throw-in (e.g., foul, violation, made basket). Play is resumed by returning to that activity (free throw, throw-in or jump ball).

Situation 3: The Last Resort. The only-when-all-else-fails case. We are not in either Situation 1 or 2. There is no goal, infraction nor end of quarter/extra period is involved (other rules tell us how to resume play from those situations). Normally this happens when the ball is live, play is going on, but no team is in control. Play is resumed by an alternating-possession throw-in.

*I added the jump ball to this situation both to make it tie more naturally to NFHS 6-1-1, and also because it has obviously and clearly been accidentally omitted from 4-36-2. If the game is interrupted before or during a jump ball and the specified way to resume play is to return to the point of interruption, you have to return to the jump ball. There is no team control and therefore you cannot have a regular throw-in. The AP arrow has not been established and you cannot have an AP throw-in. You either jump it up, or you turn off the lights and go home. Unless you are BillyMac, in which case you flip a coin ;)

Ummm... isn't POI used following an accidental whistle? :p
So isn't the procedure exactly the same? ;)

The problem here is that too many officials get one aspect of the pre-POI inadvertent whistle rule (as I remember it) mixed up with POI. So when it's a throw-in that gets interrupted, they immediately respond with "no team control, go to the arrow." At least that's the only reason I can come up with why folks blow right past 4-36-2b in their zeal to get right to the darned arrow.

We see this every season: "Is it POI or AP?" The question betrays a misunderstanding of POI that BITS and others have been trying to correct.

POI is a complex procedure for getting the ball back in play, and it includes as one of its possible procedures the AP arrow. In some cases, POI will invoke the AP arrow, in others it won't; the rule specifies which are which (not a judgment call).

Kudos to the OP for going to the rule book with this question, even though the approach is backwards. We don't want to look up all the times the AP is used and try to fit one to the situation given.

Instead, the order you want is: double foul -> POI -> definition of POI -> applicable provision. Since a throw-in was in progress when the DF was called, resume with the throw-in. Easy as pie.

Someday, Over The Rainbow ...
 

By rule, I'm not allowed to do this at this point in time, but, someday ...

One of those last three items had to be involved, or there wouldn't be a throw-in. Since one of those items was involved, the condition isn't met and the resulting action (AP throw in) isn't followed.

Just go to the POI rule, and follow the methods in order:

a) If there was team control, give it back to the team in control.

b) If there was no team control, but it was during a FT or throw-in, or during a try which results in a throw-in, go back to the FT or throw-in.

c) If neither a nor b, then go to the arrow.

Hope springs eternal ;)

As you know, that sounds better in Latin. ;)

POI is greater than AP
 

I recently had a MS coaching friend of mine ask me about POI vs AP. His understanding of each was that they were simply two different methods of putting the ball in play. And the only way to determine which to use was to memorize, by rule, when to use each.

He was wrong and I think my explanation helped him understand it. I hope I use the correct words and can convey that idea here.

There are certain situations that will always be AP because the POI will always give us an AP situation. They are listed in 6-4-3(a,b,c and f).

In 6-4-3(d,e,and g) we are given the situations that may or may not have an obvious POI to put the ball back in play. The situations that give us an obvious POI in (d) are when there is a FT to follow (as in multiple FT's) and when there is Throw-in to follow the attempt (as in a techincal FT). The situations that give us an obvious POI in (e & g) are a goal, an infraction, the end of a quarter/extra period. If none of these exist we go to AP.

So to sum it up, we would always go POI if it were possible. It is not so we we have to go AP sometimes and the criteria for that is spelled out in 6-4-3.

I'm sure there are holes in my explanation. But basically, AP only exists to put the ball in play to start 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters and to put the ball in play when there isn't an obvious POI as described in 6-4-3.

Now, let the hole poking begin!

The definition of POI includes AP as a last resort. There are certain situations, however, that go AP by rule rather than POI. Simultaneous FT violation, non-throwin lodged in the rim, held balls, new quarters. For some of these, it doesn't make a difference (rim lodge and Simultaneous FT violation); for others (held balls), it might.

Exactly! Think of it this way: going to the AP arrow is the means of last resort - you only use it if none of the other conditions fit. As BITS, Nevadaref, Bob & others have pointed out, a double foul that occurs during a throw-in or try which results in a throw-in (i.e. successful attempt of last free throw) clearly falls under the POI rule. Don't over analyze it.......

Am I missing any situations that go AP by rule rather than POI when I say they are listed in 6-4-3(a,b,c & f) and to start 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters?

Edited: This is a legitimate question and not intended to bait anyone. I fear I am missing a situation that ruins my whole thought process.

I knew you had friends out there:)

No, I think you got it.

Thanks again guys! Getting ready to head to the game now...gonna have to bring a snickers bar since I was wrong, we didnt even bet, but I figure I owe him something,lol. Ill def be looking back to the explainations for Mondays meeting!~