Double Foul During AP Throw-In

[Raymond]

Someone let me know when Randy actually quotes a rule word-for-word. Until then all his typing is just a bunch of BS.

He's been officiating a whole 1 1/2 years and he is now the Messiah when it comes to rules interpretations.

How has basketball survived this long without him?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Nevada, you may have fallen into snarkless Snaq's trap. Here, I believe he is arguing that team A gets to keep the APTI that existed at the time of the IW because of 2b.

He is, and he is correct that 2b is the applicable portion of the rule which applies as a throw-in was in progress at the time of the stoppage. That's exactly how the rule reads and its intent. The only issue that I have with the text of the rule is that it does not specify that the AP status of the throw-in or the end line running ability of the throw-in is retained.
Part 2c is NOT the proper portion of the POI rule to apply when there is a throw-in or FT in progress or due for a team and a stoppage of the kind listed in the POI rule occurs.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

His endgame is to use agreement with him on this to support his position regarding Bob Jenkins' situation--if 2b prescribes APTI when IW, then 2b prescribes APTI when DF.

I concur with his analogy. Since the text of the rule in 2b only says throw-in and not AP throw-in or end line throw-in, if we are going to revert for a specific type in one situation, then we need to revert to the type of throw-in in the other as well.
The problem is not that of Snaqs or Bob Jenkins, but rather that of the NFHS rules writers who failed to consider this small point. Snaqs and Bob are applying the correct portion of the rule 2b. It is the ONLY portion of the rule which applies during a FT or throw-in or when such activity is due to either team. You wish to apply 2c, but that portion isn't for when throw-in or FT activity was occurring or about to occur when the stoppage took place, so it cannot be applied.
My only issue with the text of the NFHS rule is that under 2b the drafters failed to consider what to do if the POI rule needs to be applied during an AP throw-in or an end line running throw-in as opposed to during just a normal designated-spot throw-in? They failed to provide a detailed instruction whether the throw-in status is retained or not.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

I say you may have fallen into his trap, because you seem to rely exclusively on the language of 2b back in post 94 when you discuss the APTI question. I believe you contradict yourself if you rely exclusively on 2b for your conclusion in 94, and then rely exclusively on 2b to say 2b prescribes an APTI in the case of an IW during an APTI.

2b is the ONLY portion of the POI rule to use or to refer to for the posed situations. 2a and 2c DO NOT APPLY. You must learn that. There is no argument to this point.
I have agreed that the text of the rule doesn't lend itself to awarding either an APTI following a DF or an IW, but that is what experience on the court and with the NFHS rules committee members is telling us to do. If I had to pick simply from the text of the POI rule, then it would be a normal designated-spot throw-in. Thankfully, as an experienced HS official, I can draw on a bit more than is directly in the book. That is what BNR is doing as well. The difference between us is that I admit that the rule as written doesn't lend itself to awarding other than a normal throw-in.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Using your own words, I have to disagree with your assertion that an actual hierarchy exists in Article 2. I refer you back to your words in post 94: "Too bad that's not how they wrote the rule," ". . ., but that is NOT what the text of the POI rule says," and, "The strict text of the POI rule . . .." If the drafters indended a true hierarchy, we wouldn't be arguing about it--that's how they would have written the rule.

All of my statements which you have just quoted pertain to my opinion that the NFHS rule writers failed to specify that whatever throw-in status is retained when the POI rule is applied. My comments do not pertain to the hierarchy inherent in Article 2 of the POI rule. The hierarchy is iron-clad. It is there and must be there for the rule to make sense. Otherwise, one could ALWAYS award and APTI when applying the POI rule. That is NOT what the intent of having the rule is. That is how the game was prior to the committee writing and instituting the rule. The whole reason that they did so was to change how the administration was.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

When Article 2 is read as a whole, in context with other rules and Case Book examples that relate to POI, I don't see a purpose to divining a hierarchy. The appropriate option presents itself based on the circumstances of the play situation and a simple process of elimination. Replace the identifying letters with bullets, or scramble the list's "order", and tell me if doing so changes the outcome of any of those Case Book plays you refer to. Using your DF example while dribbling, there is no need to begin with "a". One could begin with "b" or "c", and the result is still "a", because "b" and "c" eliminate themselves, do they not?

2c would never eliminate itself as it is written to apply to all situations not covered by 2a and 2b. Also, as I just wrote above, 2c used to be the way to resume the game prior to the NFHS instituting the POI rule, the concept of which was taken from the NCAA ranks.
If you started with 2c, you would be forced to say that it applies to the given situation on the court and resume with an APTI every time. So the scrambling is wrong and a, b, c are ordered and the rule must be applied in that specific stepwise process.
The rulings for several of the Case Book plays would change. For example, Team A releases a try for goal. While the ball is in flight, B3 and A3 commit a double personal foul. The try is successful. How does the game resume? The Case Book tells us that Team B gets a throw-in and MAY RUN THE END LINE. If we used your scramble method, we could just as well award an APTI to whichever team the arrow favors. Not the same outcome!

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

I agree with what you say regarding the definition of POI and how APTI fits into it. I don't rely on some hierarchy that is not stated in the text for that, however. Other rules and Case Book examples make it clear that the APTI component of the POI definition is a fairness mechanism, as it is used in the case of a held ball, or ball knocked OOB unseen by an official or by two opponents simultaneously.

Yes, an APTI is used as a last resort when there is no other way to determine possession. That is why it is listed LAST as 2c following the other two steps, namely team control or throw-in/FT in progress or pending. If you wish to see it as a fairness mechanism, then that is fine, but it is the final step, not the first on the checklist.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Someone let me know when Randy actually quotes a rule word-for-word. Until then all his typing is just a bunch of BS.

He's been officiating a whole 1 1/2 years and he is now the Messiah when it comes to rules interpretations.

How has basketball survived this long without him?

May I suggest that you be wise beyond your years and just ignore ol' Randy? He's not smart enough to know what he doesn't know. And you'll ain't ever gonna get that through to him.

And we sureashell don't need another voice present in this interminable back and forth anyway where the exact same points are being made over and over again, with maybe a very slight change in the wording every now and then. Leave that to the cunning linguists. Let 'em have their fun.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Great. Now we've got Jurassic Referee posting images, embedded video images. This from a guy who probably once called movies "talkies". This is going to get really good. Really really good.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If you started with 2c, you would be forced to say that it applies to the given situation on the court and resume with an APTI every time.

You've lost me, Nevada. This is just patently false. Your DF situation involved team control, and an infraction--both of which exclude 2c by 2c's own language. What are you talking about, here?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

You've lost me, Nevada. ...

No duh.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

You've lost me, Nevada. This is just patently false. Your DF situation involved team control, and an infraction--both of which exclude 2c by 2c's own language. What are you talking about, here?

Same question:
Non AP spot throw-in for A. During the throw-in, there is a) an IW b) a DF or c) a CE.
Do you use 4-36-2b or 4-36-2c?

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You can see it how you want. I see we're at an impasse. Either I'm incapable of dismantling your point, or you're incapable of recognizing that dismantling. In the end, it doesn't matter which of us is right on that point. I felt it was time to simply start over. No points have been conceded either way.

and

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No one is saying the heirarchy is spelled out in the rule; . . ..

I don't think of it in terms of points, but this last part is all I was saying--and you agree with me.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

My response to this point, however, is simple.

Sitch: Spot throw-in (non-AP) for A. DF called, during the throw-in, on A2 and B2. Without a heirarchy, how do you determine whether to use 4-36-2b (a new TI for A) or 4-36-2c (an APTI for whomever has the arrow)? There is no team control, and it's during a throw-in, so either could apply. Right? If not, why not?

The very first words I said in this thread:

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Reff and APG: As an aside, notice that 2c excludes itself from relevance by its own wording. There is an infraction present in the play situation being discussed in this thread, the double-foul. (2c says that 2c does not apply if an infraction is involved when the game is interrupted.)

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

. . .; but you can't properly apply it without going through them in order.

You're begging the question. Your statement expresses a conclusion which is actually what is in question, here--as far as this part of our discussion is concerned, I mean. We have yet to see whether they must be gone through in a particular order so as to yield consistent results. So far, I haven't come up with a play situation where a particular order changes the outcome, as long as I don't read things into the definition to begin with, and am willing to include other passages in the books.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Nowhere in the rules are IWs treated differently than DFs. Or am I missing it?

That is what I have been arguing since my original post:

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

This is all confirmed by 6-1-2’s subnote, and CB 6.4.5 SitA: “If a foul by either team occurs before an alternating-possession throw-in ends, the foul is penalized as required and play continues as it normally would, but the possession arrow is not reversed. The same team will still have the arrow for the next alternating-possession throw-in. The arrow is reversed when an alternating-possession throw-in ends.” The next alternating-possession throw-in doesn’t come until something new generates it. There is no resumption of A’s original alternating-possession throw-in. We have moved on.

For NFR, who may be without his book, 6-1-2's subnote reads, "Any rules statement is made on the assumption that no infraction is involved or implied. If such infraction occurs, the rule governing it is followed. For example, a game or extra period will not start with a jump ball if a foul occurs before the ball becomes live." But it would start with a jump ball if an IW occurred before the ball became live! An IW is not an infraction. When an infraction occurs, we are told everything resets, and we follow the rules governing the infraction from that point forward. That is why an APTI becomes history in the case of an interrupting infraction. Everything resets, we follow the course dictated by the infraction, and off we go--with A having retained the arrow for the next APTI. I go on in subsequent posts with additional Rules and Case Book citations which definitely seem to support this.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

4-36-1 lists all the times POI is to be used, and there isn't a different POI rule for IWs vs DFs.

Now, you sound like me--arguing strict adherence to the rules as written. Yes, I agree, and that is why I argue it isn't simply a matter of a definition. Other passages in the books are informative, as well. IWs appear to be like TOs (including officials' TOs)--"do-overs", unless otherwise specified.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

My point is, if you revert back to the original AP throw-in on an IW, you need to do so for a DF as well. 7-5-3b directs you to 4-36 for DFs, which is a redundant version of 4-36-1.

I think I agree with you, here, but I'm missing the import. I don't understand how this disproves that infractions are treated differently than IWs.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

and I don't think of it in terms of points, but this last part is all I was saying--and you agree with me.

No, it wasn't all you were saying. We're saying it's not written that way, but it has to be applied that way. You are disagreeing with the second half of that.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

So far, I haven't come up with a play situation where a particular order changes the outcome, as long as I don't read things into the definition to begin with, and am willing to include other passages in the books.

Please answer my most recent question, and we'll see.

Two problems, your theses are simply too long, and you're over thinking the rules. Simply treat them all (IWs, DFs, etc) the same as prescribed in 4-36-1, and go through articles a, b, and c in order.

The rules aren't meant to be complex philosophical problems requiring an advanced degree in rhetoric or mathematics.

[Jurassic Referee]

[BillyMac]

[bob jenkins]

It either is or it isn't, and everyone can make up his or her own mind.