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

A1 releases shot, A2 illegal screen -vs- B1 push foul on A2.

Shot sinks, we count bucket, report double foul (A2 and B1), and then went to AP for inbound. (NFHS)

Second guessing the AP, POI?

Incorrect.

For all double fouls we resume with the point of interruption. Sometimes the POI happens to be the AP. In this case, the POI will be an undesignated throw-in for Team B.

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.

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.

Maybe A Few Dog Years ???
 

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.

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...

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.

So B1 was pushing through and illegal screen by A1? I am just banging the illegal screen and be done with it.

+1

Was the push so bad that you thought it necessary to penalize?

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.)

Yeppers. I too tend to always go with first-come-first-served on sitchs like this, however this was an easy one for me, they both saw it coming, this was no "collision" and the push was at the exact same moment as the block.

I am far more likely to hand out doubles on the excessive bump-and-grind on the block than I am on a bad screen. It was B's decision to try and plow through while extending his arms into A's upper body. I had a great look at this one.

As for shot being long gone, the point-guard didn't wait for the screen to drive he stepped back and put up a jumper just as the offense was trying to set up.

(This was 8th grade Quad-A Boys. Even both coaches liked the double call. AP happened to be B's ball so I guess it might have looked right, even though we should've gone POI and they shouldn't have lost the next AP.)

Thanks again to this forum for helping new and old improve.

My Favorite Scrimmage Call ...
 

Agree. And I am far more likely to hand out such double fouls early in the season, as well as early in the game.

If the push was as bad as you say maybe just go with the foul on Team B if that was the one that everyone say.

He said it was an easy call to go DF, why are we questioning this as if he's calling a DF on a screen every game?

Because a DF on an illegal screen is a cop-out 99.9% of the time. Hell, a DF itself is a cop-out at least 95% of the time.

Either call the screen or call the push, don't call both. It would be just like calling a DF on a block/charge because the defender didn't have LGP but the offensive player lowered his shoulder.

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.

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.)

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

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.

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

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

True
 

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!

Except when
 

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.

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?

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.

We will just have to agree to disagree
 

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.

As does an official interpretation
 

Official interpretations also supersedes our opinions but that doesn't prevent some from disregarding them when they don't like the interpretation.

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.

That can be problematic, chief.

"I don't like the interpretation, so I'm going to enforce it my way." Such attitudes only lead to inconsistencies among us, and that doesn't make it better for the masses. It's better to adjust yourself to what everyone agreed upon (and remember, rules and interpretations are ultimately agreements).

Granted, in this case, your alternative viewpoint is merely a different means to the same end. Just be careful with disregarding things that have already been agreed upon. You can disagree, just keep on enforcing.

Because the case book backs me up
 

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!

That's my point
 

I don't disregard official interpretations. Others on this board do when it doesn't fit with how they have interpreted the rule. You and I can't arbitrarily agree to disregard an official interpretation. You and I can have different interps but it is the official interp that carries the most weight! Otherwise, we can have utter chaos if we all interp the rules differently and disregard the governing body.

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.

And to me as well
 

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.

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?

To get to the other side?:confused:

Because
 

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

Because it's in his nature.

Because
 

It's what scorpions do. I think this is a comment directed at my propensity for arguing semantics! :)

Fixed it for ya...

And with any luck I pissed off both you and bainsey while doing so. :D

Lol
 

Where you trying to piss us off? :D

Intent is not a factor.

Intentional Foul
 

Intentional Foul on mbyron. Two shots and the ball! :D

Hmph. That's the thanks I get for fixing your spelling error? :p

Nah, more about why I've engaged the argument for so long.

Does location matter?

Location always matters.

Well, except for a missed 3-point shot.

Yep
 

No good deed goes unpunished! :p

Yeah, that's bad form (sic) where he comes from. It could lead to him being misquoted and brought before congress or something.

Where?

Georgia and Maine respectively.

SmartJurassicReferee
 

LOL! You got me!

Nah. :)

Never touch another man's dangling participle! :eek: