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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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]

Originally Posted by rwest

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?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

I'm just not sure why you think a different line of reasoning is required when the rule itself is very clear and basic. AP is one method, the last method, in the progression of the POI rule.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm just not sure why you think a different line of reasoning is required when the rule itself is very clear and basic. AP is one method, the last method, in the progression of the POI rule.

Case Play 4.19.8 Situation C

A1 drives for a try and jumps and releases the ball. Contact occurs between A1 and B1 after the release and before airborne shooter returns one foot to the floor. One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the other official calls a charging foul on A1. The try is (a) successful, or (b) not successful.

Ruling: Even though airborne shooter A1 committed a charging foul, it is not a player-control foul because the two fouls result in a double personal foul. The double foul does not cause the ball to become dead on the try. In (a), the goal is scored; play is resumed at the point of interruption, which is a throw-in for team B from anywhere along the end line. In (b), the point of interruption is a TRY IN FLIGHT; therefore the alternating-possession procedure is used.

The writer of the case book believes the POI is not the AP but the TRY IN FLIGHT!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rwest

The writer of the case book believes the POI is not the AP but the TRY IN FLIGHT!

And the writer is completely correct as per NFHS rule 4-36. The POI is the try in flight. And some of the POI's end up being AP's, and this is one of them.

And for the record, I'm not sure exactly whatinthehell you two are arguing about. The rules are very clear imo. Rule 4-36-1 lays out when you go to the POI. Rule 4-36-2 lays out how you resume play at the POI is in different situations. And in the play being discussed, you use 4-36-2(c) because neither team was in control.

It's straightforward to me.