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

[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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

Some believe the POI in this case is the AP Arrow. I say the POI is not the AP Arrow, but the AP is the way we resume play, just as you have said. But others disagreed and the argument began.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rwest

Some believe the POI in this case is the AP Arrow. I say the POI is not the AP Arrow, but the AP is the way we resume play, just as you have said. But others disagreed and the argument began.

This will hurt your argument, but I agree with you.


POI= Play is resumed at the point of interruption. We start over at the exact point where we would have been had there been no whistle. If this is not possible, play is resumed with an AP throwin.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rwest

Some believe the POI in this case is the AP Arrow. I say the POI is not the AP Arrow, but the AP is the way we resume play, just as you have said. But others disagreed and the argument began.

Semantics, guys. And semantics that do nothing but confuse.

The POI is the POI. Nothing more; nothing less. You resume play according to the play conditions at the time of the POI.

You both obviously know the rule and how to apply it correctly. Why argue about meaningless semantics?

JMO

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Semantics, guys. And semantics that do nothing but confuse.

The POI is the POI. Nothing more; nothing less. You resume play according to the play conditions at the time of the POI.

You both obviously know the rule and how to apply it correctly. Why argue about meaningless semantics?

JMO

Why did the scorpion sting the frog?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Semantics, guys. And semantics that do nothing but confuse.

The POI is the POI. Nothing more; nothing less. You resume play according to the play conditions at the time of the POI.

You both obviously know the rule and how to apply it correctly. Why argue about meaningless semantics?

JMO

Semantics can't be meaningless because by definition it is the study of meaning! Sorry, I couldn't help myself!