Double Foul During AP Throw-In

[Mark Padgett]

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 in the play situation.)

All: Like Reff, I appreciate the cite, JR. Besides a definition, however, there are a few others on point, I think. 6-4-5 tells us that a foul by either team during an alternating-possession throw-in “does not cause the throw-in team to lose the possession arrow”. CB 6.4.5 SitA explains that “A violation by team A during an alternating-possession thrown-in is the only way a team loses its turn under the procedure.” We could have free-throws coming up as a result of the infraction during the alternating-possession throw-in, or the other team could be inbounding because of a foul by team A. Simply put, team A’s alternating-possession throw-in is over when the infraction occurs. A keeps the arrow, and we move on. (See below for authority.) Unless something subsequently creates a new alternating-possession throw-in for A, even if the consequence of the infraction, a double-foul, in our case, is team A inbounding the ball, again, the situation has reset, and it is now the normal throw-in that would result from the infraction that caused the interruption.

Although the alternating-possession throw-in is history, it did not “end”, strictly speaking. 6-4-4 tells how an alternating-possession throw-in “ends”: it ends as any throw-in ends. 4-42-5 enumerates the ways throw-ins end. A foul is not one of them. Therefore, a foul pre-empts the “ending” of a throw-in, as defined by the book. Some of you are married to the idea that the “original” throw-in resumes, with all of its original attributes, following the infraction. I have not found a passage in the book that supports this, and have found ones that contradict it. The fact that the alternating-possession throw-in has not “ended” in the formal sense of the book’s meaning suggests that it, well . . ., has not ended, and that if circumstances work out, we go right back to it. But the books don’t say that, they say the contrary. The passages I cite, read together, make it clear that the interruption caused by the infraction results in whatever would follow the interruption, normally. If it is new throw-in for A, it operates as it normally would following a double-foul—no alternating-possession attribute. Consider, if the infraction weren’t a double-foul, free-throws may have resulted, or B may have been awarded the ball for inbounding if fouled by A. Clearly, the original alternating-possession throw-in is history in those situations, and nothing in the book carves out an exception for interruptions involving double-foul infractions that I can find. Scrapper was dead on.

This is all confirmed by 6-2’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.

Referee Magazine is correct, as Scrapper was saying.

For what it’s worth, in BJ’s play situation, it is not material that A1 has not yet released the throw-in. That particular condition turns on whether the ball has yet been legally touched inbounds, (CB 6.4.1 (b)).

[ChuckElias]

This play reminds me of one that we talked about a few years ago, and I actually submitted it to a Rules Committee member, b/c we couldn't come to an agreement on it. Here's the original thread:

Case book submissions?

In the play we submitted, the double foul was committed during a throw-in following a basket, rather than during an AP throw-in, but maybe (I'll let you guys decide) the logic would be the same for both situations. Here's the play, with Mary Struckoff's interp (the blue is my explanation of exactly what we're trying to clarify, and the red is Mary's response as related by the committee member):

PLAY: Team A scores a successful field goal. While B1 is holding the ball for the ensuing throw-in, A2 and B2 are charged with a double foul. Official puts the ball in play at the point of interruption and allows A1 to make the throw-in from anywhere along the endline. Is the official correct? (Is the play resumed at the POI, which seems to be a throw-in anywhere along the endline? Or since it is not a common foul, is it resumed with a designated spot throw-in?) The throw-in would be from anywhere along the end line. Her judgment is that the POI is the “original” throw in location and situation.

So, if the POI in this case is a NON-designated spot throw-in b/c that's the type of throw-in that was in progress at the time of the double foul, my guess (and it's only a guess) is that the answer would be the same for a double foul committed during an AP throw-in.

See you in the tournament chat room later tonight.

[APG]

Randy, I noticed you mentioned my name only because I could stand to read only the first few points of your novel. Seriously, if you want people to start responding to you in a positive way and have a back and forth conversation with you, you're going to have to be truncate your replies by half.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

This play reminds me of one that we talked about a few years ago, and I actually submitted it to a Rules Committee member, b/c we couldn't come to an agreement on it. Here's the original thread:

Case book submissions?

In the play we submitted, the double foul was committed during a throw-in following a basket, rather than during an AP throw-in, but maybe (I'll let you guys decide) the logic would be the same for both situations. Here's the play, with Mary Struckoff's interp (the blue is my explanation of exactly what we're trying to clarify, and the red is Mary's response as related by the committee member):

So, if the POI in this case is a NON-designated spot throw-in b/c that's the type of throw-in that was in progress at the time of the double foul, my guess (and it's only a guess) is that the answer would be the same for a double foul committed during an AP throw-in.

See you in the tournament chat room later tonight.

Thanks, Chuck. This makes sense; even if Randy, scrappy, and RefMag disagree with it.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Randy, you really need to talk to my friend. His name is Cliff, last name Notes.

Hey, hey!! Randy is one of my astute and succint students of the rules of basektball, .

MTD, Sr.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

1. I don't think Scrapper was saying RefMag was correct.
2. Keep it simple. The DF was called during an AP throw-in. Therefore, the POI is the AP throw-in and the arrow will change when that replacement AP throw-in is completed. (4-36-2b)

Scrapper said, "Why is the POI an alternating possession throw-in? The POI rule says that if the interruption occurs during a throw-in, you resume with a throw-in for that team. Nothing in that rule specifies that the throw-in remains an AP throw-in." That is the crux of my argument, exactly. Where was Scrapper going, if not where I went?

4-36-2b does not say what you claim. It says nothing about alternating possession, nor anything more generally about original attributes carrying forward. You are reading that in. We talked about citations on another thread, so I’m asking: Which rule specifically states that alternating possession is retained?

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

All of what you are saying shows that you do not know the meaning of Point of Interruption. If the POI is an alternating possession throw-in then the subsequent throw-in retains that status.

If this had occurred during a non-designated spot throw-in (after a made basket) then guess what. Play would be resumed with Team A entitled to running the end line on the throw-in.

You really need to get in the books and learn what POI is before wasting so many keystrokes.

You are begging the question: You say it is retained, because it is retained. Where is it written that it is retained?

Regarding your non-designated analogy: You are mistaken. 7-5-7b specifies retention only in the case of a common foul. 7-5-3 mandates a “Designated out-of-bounds spot throw-in nearest to where the ball became dead” in the case of a double foul. The non-designated TI is history. It is now designated at the POI.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

This play reminds me of one that we talked about a few years ago, and I actually submitted it to a Rules Committee member, b/c we couldn't come to an agreement on it. Here's the original thread:

Case book submissions?

In the play we submitted, the double foul was committed during a throw-in following a basket, rather than during an AP throw-in, but maybe (I'll let you guys decide) the logic would be the same for both situations. Here's the play, with Mary Struckoff's interp (the blue is my explanation of exactly what we're trying to clarify, and the red is Mary's response as related by the committee member):

So, if the POI in this case is a NON-designated spot throw-in b/c that's the type of throw-in that was in progress at the time of the double foul, my guess (and it's only a guess) is that the answer would be the same for a double foul committed during an AP throw-in.

See you in the tournament chat room later tonight.

I think the Committee person missed the significance of your common-foul reference. 7-5-3 answers it directly. There is no need for “her judgment.” The spot is designated at the POI.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Randy, I noticed you mentioned my name only because I could stand to read only the first few points of your novel. Seriously, if you want people to start responding to you in a positive way and have a back and forth conversation with you, you're going to have to be truncate your replies by half.

Better?

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Hey, hey!! Randy is one of my astute and succint students of the rules of basektball, .

MTD, Sr.

Reporting for duty, sir!

[RandyBrown]

4-36-1 establishes double-foul causality for POI. 2b then anticipates POI application during a throw-in. 2c then deals with AP. Is it plausible to think that, after decades, the Committee has failed to realize that the original throw-in might be an APTI, or that if they did realize it, thought there no need to make explicit the possibility of an interrupted APTI in 2b and how to handle it? That is fantastical! There is no way they intended resumption of an interrupted APTI in 2b, and neglected to mention it. We can’t assume anything. If it isn’t written, it isn’t a rule.

6-1-2’s subnote specifically says that the procedure of an infraction negates and replaces the procedure/rule that was at work at the time of the infraction. Whether it be foul shots or inbounding--whatever that particular infraction’s normal procedure is gets followed--unless otherwise specified, of course. A double foul does not result in an APTI. 6-4-3g specifically states this. It says that if a double foul occurs, and the POI is such that there was no team control (as in our interrupted APTI), an APTI will not follow.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

!)You are begging the question: You say it is retained, because it is retained. Where is it written that it is retained?

Regarding your non-designated analogy: You are mistaken. 7-5-7b specifies retention only in the case of a common foul. 7-5-3 mandates a “Designated out-of-bounds spot throw-in nearest to where the ball became dead” in the case of a double foul. The non-designated TI is history. It is now designated at the POI.

1) NFHS rule 4-36-2(b)

2) NFHS rule 4-36-2(b)

Your problem(s) is that not only do you talk too f'ing much, you don't listen and you can't or won't try to understand what people are trying to tell you.

You'll learn a helluva lot more here listening than talking, especially when you've already shown us you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Sorry, but there it is.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

I think the Committee person missed the significance of your common-foul reference. 7-5-3 answers it directly. There is no need for “her judgment.” The spot is designated at the POI.

The key with going to the committee person is you're going to the source and get a much better idea of the "intent" they have with the rule itself. The intent of the POI rule is to simply resume where you left off. That's made clear by the answer Chuck received.

At least you're consistent, though. Wrong...but consistent.

Look at it this way: if you do either situation as you suggest (leave the arrow as it is, or take away the endline throw-in and replace it with a designated spot), you're punishing one team over the other. That's specifically what the rule is designed to prevent.

Look at it this way:
What would you do if, instead of a DF, you had to go to POI due to an inadvertent whistle?

Sitch 1: A1 has the ball for an endline throw-in, he throws across the paint to A2, standing OOB. In a momentary brain fart, you blow your whistle for a throw-in violation and immediately realize your error. Are you going to administer an endline throw-in or a spot throw-in? Why?

Sitch 2: A1 has the ball for an AP throw-in. About 3 seconds into your count, the table hits the horn and calls you over. After a brief discussion about player fouls and scorebooks, you're ready to resume play. AP throw-in or standard throw-in?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

You are begging the question: You say it is retained, because it is retained. Where is it written that it is retained?

Regarding your non-designated analogy: You are mistaken. 7-5-7b specifies retention only in the case of a common foul. 7-5-3 mandates a “Designated out-of-bounds spot throw-in nearest to where the ball became dead” in the case of a double foul. The non-designated TI is history. It is now designated at the POI.

Don't have NFHS with me so I'll put the NCAA rule out there:

Section 53. Point of Interruption
Art. 2. Play shall be resumed after any appropriate penalty is administered by one of the following methods:

a. A throw-in to the team that was in control at a designated spot nearest to where the ball was located when the stoppage occurred.

1. A ball that is not in contact with a player or the playing court retains the same status as when it was last in contact with a player or the playing court. This does not apply to a try in flight.

Exceptions: (Men) A single contact dead ball and a single flagrant technical foul (ball awarded at the division line).

b. (Women) A throw-in to the offended team at a designated spot nearest to where the ball was located when the stoppage occurred for a technical foul for an excessive timeout or a single flagrant technical foul.

c. A free throw or a throw-in when the stoppage occurred during this activity or when a team is entitled to such with no reset of the shot clock.

d. An alternating-possession throw-in at a designated spot with a reset of the shot clock when the point of interruption is such that neither team is in control and no goal, infraction, nor end of half/extra period is involved.

Exception: (Women) Rule 2-11.7.i.

You notice how in "c", the only play specifically referencing a play that was stopped during a throw-in, that the phrase "designated spot" is not included? Do you think there might be a reason for that?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

...Regarding your non-designated analogy: You are mistaken. 7-5-7b specifies retention only in the case of a common foul. 7-5-3 mandates a “Designated out-of-bounds spot throw-in nearest to where the ball became dead” in the case of a double foul. The non-designated TI is history. It is now designated at the POI.

And again using the NCAA rule book:

Rule 7 Section 5
Art. 6. After a successful goal as listed in Rule 7-4.1.c,

a. The team not credited with the score shall make the throw-in from the end of the court where the goal was made and from any point outside the end line which includes the following:

1. A common foul is committed near the end line before the bonus is in effect;
2. An intentional personal foul or a flagrant personal foul is committed near the end line;
3. A goaltending or basket interference violation;
4. The ball is intentionally kicked by the defense along the end line during the throw-in; or
5. A timeout is granted.
b. For the above, any player of the throw-in team may make a direct throw-in or may pass the ball along the end line to a teammate(s) who is also out of bounds.