Double Foul During AP Throw-In

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

This is an officials forum, KumquatHead.

The 2 most famous are Over and Bach.

Thanks, I just spit Diet Pepsi on my screen.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

[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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Isn't it Mary Struckhoff?

There is that, but Nevada makes a good point with which I only slightly disagree. Mary's answer is consistent with what appears to be the intent of the relatively new wording of the POI rule. Oddly enough, the point was to move from AP on all DFs to simply resuming where you left off.

I disagree, slightly, that the wording of the rule contradicts Mary's answer. I personally think the wording is ambiguous on the point, and Mary's answer provided a clarification that should, I think, be made in the actual rule.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

...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.

I actually had not thought of the implications of an IF during an endline throw-in but I can understand why the NFHS made a distinction.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I actually had not thought of the implications of an IF during an endline throw-in but I can understand why the NFHS made a distinction.

I think they're change was with the IF in mind, not the DF. Sloppy, IMO.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

They did a poor job specifying their desires.

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.

The NFHS committee may certainly have desired to restore the same circumstances as prior to the DF,

(although I concede that is the basic intent of the rule),

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.

Could you please state your source for the "true" desires and intents of the Rules Committees regarding rules. My understanding is that these are expressed in only two ways: 1) the language of the rules, themselves, and 2) model rules interpretations, which I thought are what comprise the Case Book.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Could you please state your source for the "true" desires and intents of the Rules Committees regarding rules. My understanding is that these are expressed in only two ways: 1) the language of the rules, themselves, and 2) model rules interpretations, which I thought are what comprise the Case Book.

Sometimes, recognizing the history of the rules helps to ascertain the intent of the changes. Also, when the changes are announced, they sometimes are accompanied by such explanations.

That said, if you want it, you'll have to research it yourself (unless Nevadaref or someone else wants to help). The fact that you're alone in your interpretation should be telling. If it's not, that is telling. And for the record, RefMag's opinion doesn't mean you're not alone.

[RandyBrown]

Nevada just repeated what I've been arguing since my original post. I don't hear the sound of fresh flesh tearing--what gives? Everything he says is in the book. Is this a second example of that "collective reliance" I was talking about in another thread, where rather than a serious discussion grounded in the books, we just go with what our buddy said (the first being what you all were arguing before Nevada jumped in)?

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Sometimes, recognizing the history of the rules helps to ascertain the intent of the changes. Also, when the changes are announced, they sometimes are accompanied by such explanations.

That said, if you want it, you'll have to research it yourself (unless Nevadaref or someone else wants to help). The fact that you're alone in your interpretation should be telling. If it's not, that is telling. And for the record, RefMag's opinion doesn't mean you're not alone.

Research it where? You know of its existence, and won't point me to it? Why would that be?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Nevada just repeated what I've been arguing since my original post. I don't hear the sound of fresh flesh tearing--what gives? Everything he says is in the book. Is this a second example of that "collective reliance" I was talking about in another thread, where rather than a serious discussion grounded in the books, we just go with what our buddy said (the first being what you all were arguing before Nevada jumped in)?

What are you talking about? Flesh tearing? ?????

I'll re-state my minor quibble with Nevada: Whereas he sees the rule as counter to the intent we're all discussing, I see it as vague and, quite frankly, open to interpretation.

Let me ask you again, how would you resume that play if there was an IW?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Research it where? You know of its existence, and won't point me to it? Why would that be?

I know it's there, but I don't know how to find it. That's why. Let's not assume nefarious motives.

[RandyBrown]

Don't be so sensitive, Snaq. I've searched for rules annotations, and never found them, so telling me to "research it" isn't helpful. I am seriously asking: Have you actually seen official rules annotations, or Committee minutes? If so, can you recall ANYTHING about where you saw them.

I've thought about it before, and I can't imagine why they would want to issue annotations, or minutes--everyone would just start interpreting those in various ways. They can say what they mean in the rules language, and give examples in the Case Book where they feel it necessary. Why would they fail to make the rules expressive of their intent if it could be done elsewhere? That makes no sense.