Double Foul During AP Throw-In

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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. That says a lot about the confidence you have in your own abilities. What's worse is that 7-5-3 and 7 prove her wrong. Let's agree to disagree on this one. The intent of the POI rule is to simply resume where you left off. Not quite, but I know what you meant to say. It isn't simply about "where," of course "Alternating possession" doesn't have to do with location, nor does "team that was in control", and "a free throw or a throw-in". Those are all about "who", "what", and "how". Referee Magazine, scrapper, and I (and I suspect many others who read the article, as well as scholarly types) point out that no where is it written that 2b prescribes what you read into it. Rule 4 is "Definitions". You have to look elsewhere for the correct implementation of the terms defined there. Referee Magazine, and those who agree with their analysis, do just that; I provide the citations, you ignore them. There's a word for that. That's made clear by the answer Chuck received.

At least you're consistent, though. Wrong...but consistent.
That goes without saying, doesn't it? I mean, if you're right despite rules to the contrary, and despite the fact that you are reading into 2b words it does not say, then you're right no matter what, and RefMag, Scrapper, myself, and all who find those other rules dispositive are wrong no matter what. There is no need to keep saying it.

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. We in the wrong would disagree. Since we believe our position is rooted in the rules as written, and not as divined, your problem is with the rules as written, not us. I happen to disagree with your value assessment, as well, but let's not bore anyone with that. That's specifically what the rule is designed to prevent. That's a bold and confident statement of intent! Is that you talking, or is there a Commissioner there with you?

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? No infraction involved in the interruption to worry about this time, so we may be able to carpool on this one.

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? For someone who jumped on me about proper terminology, you can get sloppy at times. I'd go with a non-designated endline TI. Reasoning: Although I cannot find a rule directly on point, CB 7.5.3(d) is identical--live ball, no team control, involves a goal. CB 8.6.1, 9.1.1(a), 9.2.1SitB(a) are helpful in various ways, as well. I can find absolutely nothing that could be read to contradict continuing as if the interruption never occurred. I thought it interesting that once A2 catches the pass, we are back to no team control (on its face, 4-12-2b indicates team control existed during the pass), and 4-36-2c would dictate an APTI for the POI (like CB 7.5.3(c)), but for the goal involved in the situation when the game was interrupted. So, how'd I do? WRONG, again? [Since I know we agree, I already know I'm right. I'll be right for the wrong reasons, though--you wait and see.]

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?

Sounds like AP, to me. 7-5 doesn't cover it, as far as I can determine. The CB offers what I mentioned in Sitch 1, which together, seem to put such whistles into their own category--we're advised to treat them as though they didn't happen, to the extent possible. If that's not enough, there was no team control, and an official's TO is not an infraction, and there is no goal or end-of-period involved at the time of the interruption--seems to meet the definition of POI at 2c, which provides for an APTI. The arrow didn't change, since the original APTI never "ended" the way the book defines a TI as ending. Right, again? Wrong reasons, though, huh--because my reasons don't get you where you were hoping to lead me.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

....

All that blue text for Snaq's and I get ignored.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

All that blue text for Snaq's and I get ignored.

Oh, alright:

What up, BNR, dog eat your NFHS book? Nice try, though, trying to cover your *** with a college rule.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Oh, alright:

What up, BNR, dog eat your NFHS book? Nice try, though, trying to cover your *** with a college rule.

It's in my house somewhere. I'll find it. I don't think the verbiage is that much different though in terms of POI. I'll be bach.

[APG]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Oh, alright:

What up, BNR, dog eat your NFHS book? Nice try, though, trying to cover your *** with a college rule.

Though I'm really not sure what y'all are arguing about, but NCAA handles this plays exactly the same as NFHS.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Sounds like AP, to me. .... Wrong reasons, though, huh--because my reasons don't get you where you were hoping to lead me.

OK, I just went in an re-read the rule, and it seems you're at a crossroads.

4-36-1 tells you that POI is how you resume play for the following interruptions:
inadvertent whistle, double foul, correctable error, and interrupted game (as in 5-4-3).

There is nothing that differentiates among these events, so if you conclude that a DF during an AP throw-in would result in a standard throw-in with the arrow not changing at all, then an IW or CE would necessarily result in the same thing. There is no rules basis for treating DFs differently than IWs.

[Adam]

You have really got to figure out how to quote people properly if you're going to have a discussion like this. Just for the sake of reading ease. I'm only going to address a couple of points.

Oh, as for Scrappy, he was throwing out a hypothetical for the sake of argument. The first words of his post should have told you that.

Let's start here, with your answer to my statement that the rule is designed to prevent one team from gaining an unfair advantage:

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

That's a bold and confident statement of intent! Is that you talking, or is there a Commissioner there with you?

I'll let you search for the wording in the book, but it's there. It's actually what all the rules are designed for.

I have to admit, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything; could you elaborate?

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

No infraction involved in the interruption to worry about this time, so we may be able to carpool on this one.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Sounds like AP, to me. 7-5 doesn't cover it, as far as I can determine. The CB offers what I mentioned in Sitch 1, which together, seem to put such whistles into their own category--we're advised to treat them as though they didn't happen, to the extent possible. If that's not enough, there was no team control, and an official's TO is not an infraction, and there is no goal or end-of-period involved at the time of the interruption--seems to meet the definition of POI at 2c, which provides for an APTI. The arrow didn't change, since the original APTI never "ended" the way the book defines a TI as ending. Right, again? Wrong reasons, though, huh--because my reasons don't get you where you were hoping to lead me.

As for sitch 1, how can you go to a "non-designated endline throw-in" in spite of your earlier interpretation that POI cannot lead you there? You have an IW (accidental whistle), which the rule tells us we are to follow by resuming with POI. What's your rule reference to make the differentiation here?

First, this completely ignores the fact that the interrupting event occurred during a throw-in.

You've got an IW during a throw-in, which for purposes of the rule is treated the same exact way as a DF; unless you can point me to something that says the two are treated differently. Let's start there.