Double Foul During AP Throw-In

[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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'll be bach.

Which one? These are just the 2 most famous, of course.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Which one? These are just the 2 most famous, of course.

Whichever makes the word "back" sound like Arnie is saying it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Which one? These are just the 2 most famous, of course.

This is an officials forum, KumquatHead.

The 2 most famous are Over and 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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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

Basically what Randy is saying is that if something occurs that would cause us to resume play from the POI that if the POI is a non-designated spot throw-in it now becomes a designated spot throw-in and if the POI was an AP throw-in it nows becomes just a normal throw-in.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Basically what Randy is saying is that if something occurs that would cause us to resume play from the POI that if the POI is a non-designated spot throw-in it now becomes a designated spot throw-in and if the POI was an AP throw-in it nows becomes just a normal throw-in.

Randy should read NFHS rule 7-5-7(b) and case book play 7.5.7SitB(a) and then STFU.

Note that I read your post, not his. I'm too old to waste my few remaining moments on crap like that.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Basically what Randy is saying is that if something occurs that would cause us to resume play from the POI that if the POI is a non-designated spot throw-in it now becomes a designated spot throw-in and if the POI was an AP throw-in it nows becomes just a normal throw-in.

Unless, of course, the interrupting event is an accidental whistle. Then, he argues, you go back to whatever type of throw-in was interrupted. I'm still not sure what he bases the difference on.

[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.

[Nevadaref]

I'm rather late to chime in on this one, but that gave me a good opportunity to read all of the posts before responding.

The problem isn't with anyone one this forum or Ref Mag this time, but rather with those who wrote the rule. They did a poor job specifying their desires.

I recalled our previous discussion of the DF during the end line throw-in before I saw it posted by ChuckElias. The situation was the same there. The NFHS rule clearly states that it is a designated-spot throw-in unless a common foul occurred and a DF is NOT a common foul. The case play querry and response sent to the NFHS committee member and answered by Mark Struckhoff went directly against the written rule, so obviously the committee intended to simply restore the situation to as it was at the time of the DF. Too bad that's not how they wrote the rule.

I believe that we are having the same debate here with the AP throw-in. The NFHS committee may certainly have desired to restore the same circumstances as prior to the DF, but that is NOT what the text of the POI rule says as very astutely noted by Ref Mag and Scrapper. The strict text of the POI rule awards a new throw-in, which is not specified to be an AP throw-in to the team which was making the AP throw-in at the time of the DF.

People must understand that POI is not reverting to exactly what was happening in the game when it was stopped (although I concede that is the basic intent of the rule), but rather it is an administrative procedure that is followed to continue a game interrupted under certain circumstances with specific conditions set forth therein of exactly how to do that.

The bottom line is that once again we have detected an instance of the darn rule not saying what the committee wanted it to say because they didn't draft it well. The wording of the rule needs to be amended to specify that if the throw-in which was interrupted was an AP throw-in, then the ensuing throw-in is also an AP throw-in for that same team. A simple note would do it. (The same should be said for an end line throw-in.)

Lastly, to BNR and APG, please be careful with referencing the NCAA rules for an intentional personal foul during an end line throw-in. The ruling is NOT the same as that of the NFHS. The NCAA allows the retaining of the end line following the FTs while the NFHS does not due to a change about five seasons ago when the word "common" was added to 7-5-7 in the NFHS book. Personally, I thought it was a poor change and deprived the non-offending team of something. I think that the NCAA has it right.

[JugglingReferee]

Isn't it Mary Struckhoff?