Get it right? Double foul while shot in the air.

[NoFussRef]

I knew something was bugging me about this one. No doubt about the double call, one of the easiest I've had to make. But something was nagging me.

POI (A1's bucket was good) B gets ball for throw in and can run endline.

Worked this game with a 3rd year Association ref (I am not). We conferenced to make sure we agreed shot had been released before double foul call. He seemed a lil unsure what to do, so I asked if he felt AP was correct and he agreed.

I will be sure to get with him and his book, find the rule and any case that applies so we can both get it right next time.

[APG]

For some reason, some officials think of the AP and POI as two separate things. Some don't realize that the AP is simply one of the ways we resume with the POI.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

For some reason, some officials think of the AP and POI as two separate things. Some don't realize that the AP is simply one of the ways we resume with the POI.

For old timers like me, it's because we used to go to the arrow, or toss a jump ball, for double fouls. The point of interruption has only been around for a few years.

[jeffpea]

glad to hear that you talked w/ your partner about whether the shot was released prior to the double foul...

in my experience, the shot is almost always (99.5%) released AFTER the screen has taken place...the typical timeline is: screen, catch, shot...although it may happen, it is very unusual to have catch, shot, screen...

[bainsey]

FWIW, I had something like this last month, only it was on a free throw.

The same rules apply. A-1 released his shot, A-2 and B-2 commit a double foul ("quit it!" one of them yells), basket is good.

Foul on A-2, foul on B-2, basket is good, B's ball for an end-line throw in. Let's play.

[NoFussRef]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

For old timers like me, it's because we used to go to the arrow, or toss a jump ball, for double fouls. The point of interruption has only been around for a few years.

I think this is where I got the idea to go to the arrow. I've learned from working with "vets" every chance I get. Having not yet joined OSAA nor have I owned a copy of NFHS book since late 1990s, I have picked up rules and how to handle odd-sitchs through experience on the court.

Like to add that finding this forum has been a wealth of information and appreciate the way (most posters) seem to share my genuine love of the game and enthusiasm to always improve while helping less experienced grow.

(Plan to join Association before next season.)

[rwest]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

For some reason, some officials think of the AP and POI as two separate things. Some don't realize that the AP is simply one of the ways we resume with the POI.

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by rwest

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?

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?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Umm...what?

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?

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.

[APG]

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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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.

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

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.