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

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

AllPurposeGamer wrote
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.

Welpe

rwest wrote
We have no team control when the double foul was called and therefore we go with AP.

Unless the shot is made of course. 😉

rwest

Welpe wrote
Unless the shot is made of course. 😉

In a previous post, I made this same point! 🙂

Adam

rwest wrote
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.

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.

rwest

Snaqwells wrote
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.

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. 😉

mbyron

rwest wrote
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.

Adam

rwest wrote
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. 😉

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.

rwest

mbyron wrote
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.

rwest

Snaqwells wrote
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.

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.

bainsey

It appears we have different ways of thinking that will lead to the same result.

If I'm reading Mr. West's words correctly, he's emphasizing the word POINT in "point of interruption." In other words, at what point was the game interrupted? Was there team control?

That would be fine, but as others pointed out, 4-36-1 clearly states that POI is a method of resuming play, not just a point in the game. In other words, POI is the effect, not just the cause.

(Aside: I'm an I.T. guy, too. I enjoy these analyses, but when there's a dispute, I find that the written definition supersedes all.)

APG

bainsey wrote
It appears we have different ways of thinking that will lead to the same result.

If I'm reading Mr. West's words correctly, he's emphasizing the word POINT in "point of interruption." In other words, at what point was the game interrupted? Was there team control?

That would be fine, but as others pointed out, 4-36-1 clearly states that POI is a method of resuming play, not just a point in the game. In other words, POI is the effect, not just the cause.

It's almost as if I said that a bit earlier than you. 😉

Adam

rwest wrote
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.

And I'm an analyst by trade, and it's easier for me to actually think of it in terms of the way the rule is worded rather than my opinion of what "point of interruption" would mean without the rules.

The thing is, unless you go through them in succession, an official could simply go to 4-36-2c and go to AP when it's not appropriate.

bainsey

AllPurposeGamer wrote
It's almost as if I said that a bit earlier than you. 😉

Fair enough. I didn't read all the posts, merely reacted to a few.

So, we'll go with, "I got your back." 😉

rwest

bainsey wrote
It appears we have different ways of thinking that will lead to the same result.

If I'm reading Mr. West's words correctly, he's emphasizing the word POINT in "point of interruption." In other words, at what point was the game interrupted? Was there team control?

That would be fine, but as others pointed out, 4-36-1 clearly states that POI is a method of resuming play, not just a point in the game. In other words, POI is the effect, not just the cause.

(Aside: I'm an I.T. guy, too. I enjoy these analyses, but when there's a dispute, I find that the written definition supersedes all.)

But so is AP. The AP is a method of putting the ball in play under a certain set of circumstance one of which the POI is no team control. The POI is not the Arrow in my opinion. It is the method of putting the ball in play when the POI is no team control and we have no other way of putting the ball in play like a throw-in or free throw.

Guys part of being an engineer is seeing things in terms of black and white and not so much gray. It is an occupational hazard of mine to be very analytical. I can't help it. We all get to the same result. I just look at it differently. It makes more sense to me to think of it in terms of POI in the case being no team control. And since we were not in the process of administering a throw-in or free throw we go with the arrow.

And if you haven't figured out by now, I love a good debate. I enjoy my time on this board!

rwest

Snaqwells wrote
And I'm an analyst by trade, and it's easier for me to actually think of it in terms of the way the rule is worded rather than my opinion of what "point of interruption" would mean without the rules.

The thing is, unless you go through them in succession, an official could simply go to 4-36-2c and go to AP when it's not appropriate.

Except when an official interpretation disagrees with your interpretation. 😉

Adam

rwest wrote
Except when an official interpretation disagrees with your interpretation. 😉

I didn't say they'd be right. But I've seen it happen. "There's no team control, infraction, or goal involved in this play so we're going AP."

Or when the rule disagrees with your statement that AP is not POI. 4-36-2c

It's all one rule, 4-36, which is the definition of POI.

I'm all for a good debate, even one on semantics and logic.

My issue is that more people come to the wrong conclusion by not thinking AP is one portion of the POI rule. "Do we go AP or POI?" It's a question based on an incorrect understanding of the rule.

APG

The POI is defined as a "method of resuming play due to an official's accidental whistle, an interrupted game, as in 5-4-3, a correctable error, as in 2-10-6, a double personal, double technical, or simultaneous foul, as in 4-19-8 and 4-19-10," per 4-36.

So rwest, a statment that would read, "The AP is the POI when...(correct critera for using the arrow)," if you replaced POI with the definition of POI, it would read, "The AP is the method of resuming play due to...(rest of definition)."

Is that more black and white for you?

bainsey

rwest wrote
Guys part of being an engineer is seeing things in terms of black and white and not so much gray. It is an occupational hazard of mine to be very analytical. I can't help it.

Sure you can, and that's coming from a black-and-white thinker, too. Try officiating soccer; that'll help you use your "gray matter."

APG is right on, though. The definition supersedes your opinion. While I find there are indeed some flaws in the rule book's wording, this isn't one of them. It appears you'll have to adjust accordingly.

rwest

Snaqwells wrote
I didn't say they'd be right. But I've seen it happen. "There's no team control, infraction, or goal involved in this play so we're going AP."

Or when the rule disagrees with your statement that AP is not POI. 4-36-2c

It's all one rule, 4-36, which is the definition of POI.

I'm all for a good debate, even one on semantics and logic.

My issue is that more people come to the wrong conclusion by not thinking AP is one portion of the POI rule. "Do we go AP or POI?" It's a question based on an incorrect understanding of the rule.

I believe that if you follow a logical progression of thought you will always come to the correct conclusion. Here's how I think of it. Shot goes up and we have a double foul. What is the point of interruption? A shot attempt. Do we have team control on a shot attempt? No. Did the shot go in? Yes, then we give the ball to the other team and let them run the endline. No, then how do we put a ball in play when we have no team control and we are not already administering a throw-in or free throw and a team is not entitled to such? We go with the arrow. This line of reasoning works for every case I can think of. I think in these terms and have never and do not believe I ever will come to the wrong conclusion.

« Previous Page Next Page »