Double Foul During AP Throw-In

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

POI during a throw-in is the throw-in. The lack of team control does not affect the status of the subsequent throw-in. The administration of this play is the same in NCAA, which has TC during a throw-in, as it is in NFHS, which does not have TC during a throw-in.

Yep.

4-36-2b
Play shall be resumed by one of the following methods:
b. A free throw or a throw-in when the interruption occurred during this activity or if a team is entitled to such.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Yep.

4-36-2b
Play shall be resumed by one of the following methods:
b. A free throw or a throw-in when the interruption occurred during this activity or if a team is entitled to such.

Note here that "a free throw" doesn't preclude "two free throws." Just like "a throw-in" doesn't preclude "an AP throw-in."

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by reffish

JR, Gamer, thank you, you are the first two to direct me to a rules reference. Everyone else has just been talking about what they will do. So, the team has a throw-in, double foul. Report the foul, resume with the throw-in as before. Okay, I can do that. We do the same for the AP throw-in. Call the DF, go back to the throw-in and switch the arrow after the throw-in is complete. Got it, thanks JR and Games

Actually, that's not true either. I quoted 4-36-2b.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Note here that "a free throw" doesn't preclude "two free throws." Just like "a throw-in" doesn't preclude "an AP throw-in."

The act can only occur during a FT as two FTs don't occur during a single act.

It makes no difference what type of throw-in it is.

Maybe that's what you were saying, IDK.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

The act can only occur during a FT as two FTs don't occur during a single act.

It makes no difference what type of throw-in it is.

Maybe that's what you were saying, IDK.

Actually I was talking about free throws that are pending, but you're right, only 1 can be pending at a time.

[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)).

[Raymond]

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.)
...

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

[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.

[Adam]

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)

[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?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

... 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...

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.

[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.

[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)).

[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.