I think a cop-out would have been going no-call. Rewarding either player with a call on the other would also be a travesty. Yes this is a HTBT sitch, but since I was there and can tell you with absolute certainty that even though this is a "white-buffalo" it is what it is.

We can debate in circles about the use of a DF in any sitch, and you can statisticize when a DF is/is not a cop-out, however the original post was in regards to whether going to the AP arrow or POI is the correct procedure.

Eh, I'd like to see the video before agreeing with you on this. Since I won't, I'll simply withhold further comment.

I am One and for good reason
 

The term point of interruption means to resume play where the play was interrupted. Was the play interrupted duirng an AP Throw-in? No. It was interrupted during a shot attempt. The AP is just one way we make a dead ball live. It is the way we put a ball in play when there is no other way to do so. It is not the point of interruption. In this case we don't use the AP because the shot was good. If the shot had missed we go with the AP because we have no idea who would have got the rebound, not because the AP was the point of interruption. The POI was the shot attempt. What happens after determines how we put the ball in play. If the AP was the POI it wouldn't matter what happened with the shot. We would have gone with the AP Throw-in. But it does matter and that's why we have two different ways of putting the ball in play.

It is when the point of interruption can not be determined that we go with the AP. They are mutually exclusive.

Umm...what? :confused:

I'm looking at 4-36 right in front of me. The point of interruption is a method used to resume play. It'll either be resumed with:

1. Throw to team in control
2. Free throw or throw-in if play was stopped during such activity or if a team will be entitled to such activity.
3. Alternating possesion when a stopping occurs and there is no team control and there's no infraction, goal, or end of period/quarter.

So how is the AP not a POI? Unless you're trying to say that not all AP throw-ins are a result of having to use the POI?

What I'm saying is...
 

I agree the AP is a method of resuming play, but it is used when we have no other way of putting the ball in play. Number 1 is used when the POI is when one team has control of the ball. This could be a foul while team A is holding, dribbling or passing the ball. The POI is team control. Number 2 the POI is free throw or throw-in, so we know how to put the ball in play. We resume with what we were doing at the time. What were we doing when the ball was in the air on a shot attempt? It wasn't an AP throw-in was it? No, we were waiting for the shot to either enter the basket or miss. If the shot was no good we go with the AP because we have no way of knowing who would get the ball. The POI was not the AP. POI is a method of resuming play as the rule says. Play will be resumed with an AP throw-in not because it was the POI but that's how we resume play when there was no team control, throw-in, free throw or end of period.

It is semantics. We are splitting hairs. If you want to think of AP as the POI, I can live with it, not that that matters to you. :) It just doesn't make sense to me. In order for the AP to be the POI we would have to be administering an AP Throw-in at the time of the interruption. I prefer to think of the POI as being no team control and therefore we go with AP for the throwin.

You're thinking of the POI in terms of what action was occurring when play was stopped. 4-36 tells us that the POI is just the method in which we'll resume play based on what was happening when play was stopped.

Simple semantics. Doesn't matter as long as we're getting the play correct.

I agree
 

Both of us will get the play correct and for the same reason. We have no team control when the double foul was called and therefore we go with AP.

Unless the shot is made of course. ;)

I said that
 

In a previous post, I made this same point! :)

You already know this, but this isn't completely accurate. There are several situations where team control doesn't exist but a double foul will not go to AP.

Correct
 

But they are covered under different parts of the rule. I was specifically talking about this scenario, so my comments should be taken in context. But you already know this. ;)

This is incorrect. We use the AP arrow as the POI when there is no team control and no infraction, goal, or end of the period. That could be a missed shot, any kind of throw-in, rebounding action, or any other time there's no team control.

This is misleading. You seem to be suggesting that the POI always involves lack of team control, which is false.

Honestly, I think you're overthinking this to a degree. The fact is, AP is included in the definition of POI. You can use whatever semantic method you want to try to understand it, but the problem is by trying to teach it that way, you're potentially confusing someone who doesn't think like you.

To me, it's best to think of it as one rule with a series of steps to take to determine exactly what POI is in a given situation. And team control is only the first of those steps.

No I don't mean that
 

What I am saying is the rule book is wrong logically in saying that POI is the arrow. In the scenario we are talking about the event that is taking place is a shot attempt, not an AP Throw-in. Logically, the AP is not the POI but the method which we use to put the ball in play when there is no team control. Are you saying we would use the AP if a double foul occurred while administering a throw-in? If so, then I disagree. We would simply report the fouls and resume the throw-in. I didn't mean to say that in all cases where there is no team control we use the AP on a double foul. Read my statements in the context of a double foul on a shot attempt.

Maybe so, but I don't think so
 

I'm a logical person. It's part of my character. I'm not saying anyone else on this board isn't logical. It's just that I'm a software engineer by training and I think very analytically.