Double Foul During AP Throw-In

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Read the applicable articles in order.

If it fits 4-36-2a, go with that.
If not, but it fits 4-36-2b, go with that.
If neither of those, go with 4-36-2c.

Again, if you use 4-36-2c for an IW during an AP throw-in (right answer, wrong reason), you'll also have to use it during any throw-in and you'll be using the arrow when it's not appropriate.

I guess I'm going to need step-by-steps, because I don't know how you get independent quotes to appear like you do within the same post. Are you manually placing the QUOTE parameters around every independent phrase that you are copy-and-pasting? I have copied and pasted before, but not using QUOTE parameter syntax. I don't think you considered the way I did it acceptable. I want to say that I could copy and paste equally easily, regardless of the method someone uses to respond. Not so?

My first response is to question why you apply a mandatory order to the POI options. The definition specifies no particular order in which the three options need be considered. I would argue that if the drafters thought a particular order was material, they would have stated it exactly as you did. I'm not willing to divine a particular order. I'm going to stick with what is written, and not add anything. I read them as parts of a single definition, set apart only to communicate the three possibilities. From what I can tell so far, they seem to be mutually exclusive when other rules in the book are also considered, making a particular order irrelevant.

Again, I submit that you are reading into the book's current language what isn't there in order to make it fit with your pre-conception of how POI functions, which I think you have argued is rooted in the past. You can do whatever you want, but your way causes incongruity, as Nevada, Referee Magazine, Scrapper, and myself have contended. In the course of this thread, I have pointed out other passages in the books that are at odds with your conception of POI. Relying only on what is actually written in the definition of POI allows all of it to operate congruously, so I will stick with that.

Next, I accurately predicted your "right answer, wrong reason" position. Given your pre-conception with regard to POI, you have no choice but to take that position. I have no idea where you get the idea that relying only on what is written in the definition of POI dictates 2c for every TI. 2c excludes itself if there is team control, for starters (team-control DF, for example), and adds three additional exclusionary circumstances. I am dumbfounded by your statement. Please correct/clarify yourself.

[Adam]

First of all, now that you know how to quote multiple posts, you can learn how to break a single post into multiple quoted portions. This separates your words from those to which you are responding.

1. Click on "quote" on the post which you want to quote.
2. Copy the portion where it says "quote=xxxx:111111". Don't forget to include the brackets in your copy.
3. Stop the quote by typing "/quote", including the aforementioned brackets.
4. Paste in the "quote=xxxx:1111111" portion again to begin a new quote. The "111111" simply references a specific post, so the process allows people to click on it and be moved directly to the quoted post.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

I guess I'm going to need step-by-steps, because I don't know how you get independent quotes to appear like you do within the same post. Are you manually placing the QUOTE parameters around every independent phrase that you are copy-and-pasting? I have copied and pasted before, but not using QUOTE parameter syntax. I don't think you considered the way I did it acceptable. I want to say that I could copy and paste equally easily, regardless of the method someone uses to respond. Not so?

Like I said, you may find it petty. It was merely a request to conform with the prevailing method used here if you're going to engage in elongated discussions.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

My first response is to question why you apply a mandatory order to the POI options. ... From what I can tell so far, they seem to be mutually exclusive when other rules in the book are also considered, making a particular order irrelevant.

Really? Mutually exclusive? Yet you messed up a very basic concept by trying to use 4-36-2c when an interruption occurs during a throw-in, which is clearly a 4-36-2b issue. Frankly, until we can establish agreement on this point, I'm not sure it's worth any more discussion.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

I have no idea where you get the idea that relying only on what is written in the definition of POI dictates 2c for every TI. 2c excludes itself if there is team control, for starters (team-control DF, for example), and adds three additional exclusionary circumstances. I am dumbfounded by your statement. Please correct/clarify yourself.

No, I did not say "rely(ing) only on what is written.... dictates 2c for every TI." I said without a way of prioritizing the articles, there is no consistent way of deciding whether to use 2b or 2c during a throw-in. Any interruption during a throw-in, by definition, also occurs when there is no team control.
4-12-6

[Raymond]

I still haven't read any combination of rules from Mr. Brown that says the POI throw-ins don't retain their original status. I want him to quote where it says it "will not be an AP throw-in" and that the endline throw-in "will now be a designated spot throw-in".

I'm sure he doesn't need step-by-step instructions how to read and then type it exactly word-for-word.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Everyone, feel free to answer this one.

How charitable of you.

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Gah! I just knew this one was coming out again...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

So far, in your play situations that you have been testing my interpretation of Article 2 with, you say I have gotten the outcomes correct, but by incorrect means.

I'm going to drop all the snark and just start dealing with the issue: now, let me ask these basic questions and we'll start from there.

APTI interrupted by an IW. How do you resume? You've stated before you're using 4-36-2c to go with an AP because there is no team control (TC), is that still your opinion?

Endline throwin interrupted by an IW. How do you resume? Are you going with 4-36-2c again?

Standard, non-AP, spot throw-in interrupted by an IW. How do you resume? 4-36-2c? If not, why not?

[tjones1]

My popcorn bill is going to be extremely high after this one is over.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by tjones1

My popcorn bill is going to be extremely high after this one is over.

You are assuming there will be a lock.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Gah! I just knew this one was coming out again...

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I still haven't read any combination of rules from Mr. Brown that says the POI throw-ins don't retain their original status. I want him to quote where it says it "will not be an AP throw-in" and that the endline throw-in "will now be a designated spot throw-in".

I'm sure he doesn't need step-by-step instructions how to read and then type it exactly word-for-word.

Have you found your NFHS book, yet?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Have you found your NFHS book, yet?

Yep...and didn't see any language that says it cannot be an AP or non-designated throw-in when going to POI. Could you be so kind to quote the exact verbiage you're basing your ruling on? I'm away on business now and didn't bring my books.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Like I said, you may find it petty. It was merely a request to conform with the prevailing method used here if you're going to engage in elongated discussions.

I didn't consider it petty, but wondered if worth the effort. I can see that it has its uses. "Thanks" to you and APG for the lessons.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Frankly, until we can establish agreement on this point, I'm not sure it's worth any more discussion.

It does appear to be at the heart of it, I agree.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Really? Mutually exclusive? Yet you messed up a very basic concept by trying to use 4-36-2c when an interruption occurs during a throw-in, which is clearly a 4-36-2b issue. . . . without a way of prioritizing the articles, there is no consistent way of deciding whether to use 2b or 2c during a throw-in. Any interruption during a throw-in, by definition, also occurs when there is no team control. 4-12-6

You are definitely begging the question. Approach the issue without preconception, as evidenced by, "you messed up a very basic concept". Your use of "priority" is further evidence of preconception.

The Article's drafters specified no particular order or hierarchy for parts a, b, and c. It is just a simple list. We could scramble the list's identifying letters, and it would make no difference to application or meaning. The drafters easily could have (and no doubt would have) included a hierarchy if they intended one. No where does it say, if b, then not c, as you suggested in a previous post. Can we agree on that? If not, indicate the word or words that you think direct you to consider the parts in a particular hierarchical order. Don't introduce our play situation in some way, here; rely on the language as written. If we agree so far, then all parts are theoretically relevant to any given play situation, simultaneously. According to the language, then, nothing proscribes c from applying merely because b could also be construed to apply. This is where I say you depart from the language. In TI situations, you say that if b can be construed to apply, c must then be disregarded.

So far, in your play situations that you have been testing my interpretation of Article 2 with, you say I have gotten the outcomes correct, but by incorrect means. My means (a strict adherence to the language) gets me the correct answers on your test situations, and then also squares me with Referee Magazine, Scrapper, and Nevada in Bob Jenkins' play situation. If there is an inconsistency, it appears to be with your means--unless you have gone back to Jurassic times. [Could not resist]

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

The Article's drafters specified no particular order or hierarchy for parts a, b, and c. It is just a simple list. We could scramble the list's identifying letters, and it would make no difference to application or meaning. The drafters easily could have (and no doubt would have) included a hierarchy if they intended one. No where does it say, if b, then not c, as you suggested in a previous post. Can we agree on that? If not, indicate the word or words that you think direct you to consider the parts in a particular hierarchical order. Don't introduce our play situation in some way, here; rely on the language as written. If we agree so far, then all parts are theoretically relevant to any given play situation, simultaneously. According to the language, then, nothing proscribes c from applying merely because b could also be construed to apply. This is where I say you depart from the language. In TI situations, you say that if b can be construed to apply, c must then be disregarded.

You are not correct here. The A, B, C order of the items is important. The POI rule is a three step process which an official must apply to the specific situations mentioned in the top portion of the rule to determine how to resume the game.
The first step is to determine if there was team control by either side. If so, then that team receives a throw-in at the nearest OOB spot to the location of the ball. That is Part A and that takes priority over the other two listings.
This is obvious too. You have a double foul while team A is dribbling near the division line. You apply Part A and stop. You don't consider using AP arrow as stated under Part C. There are even Case Book plays which instruct us on the administration and all of the rulings adhere to the A, B, C order of the POI rule.

Please understand that the intent of the committee is to use the AP arrow as a last resort when determining possession. If anything else (team control, a team due a throw-in or FT, a throw-in or FT was in progress) can be used, then that takes priority and possession is awarded based upon that action.

The arrow is only used when there is no reason to give one team the ball over the other, such as an unsuccessful try for goal and no one has yet obtained control of the rebound when the stoppage occurs. See the Case Book play on a DF when there is a try in flight and how to resume if it is successful or unsuccessful.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You are not correct here. The A, B, C order of the items is important. The POI rule is a three step process which an official must apply to the specific situations mentioned in the top portion of the rule to determine how to resume the game.
The first step is to determine if there was team control by either side. If so, then that team receives a throw-in at the nearest OOB spot to the location of the ball. That is Part A and that takes priority over the other two listings.
This is obvious too. You have a double foul while team A is dribbling near the division line. You apply Part A and stop. You don't consider using AP arrow as stated under Part C. There are even Case Book plays which instruct us on the administration and all of the rulings adhere to the A, B, C order of the POI rule.

Please understand that the intent of the committee is to use the AP arrow as a last resort when determining possession. If anything else (team control, a team due a throw-in or FT, a throw-in or FT was in progress) can be used, then that takes priority and possession is awarded based upon that action.

The arrow is only used when there is no reason to give one team the ball over the other, such as an unsuccessful try for goal and no one has yet obtained control of the rebound when the stoppage occurs. See the Case Book play on a DF when there is a try in flight and how to resume if it is successful or unsuccessful.

Nevada, you may have fallen into snarkless Snaq's trap. Here, I believe he is arguing that team A gets to keep the APTI that existed at the time of the IW because of 2b. His endgame is to use agreement with him on this to support his position regarding Bob Jenkins' situation--if 2b prescribes APTI when IW, then 2b prescribes APTI when DF. I say you may have fallen into his trap, because you seem to rely exclusively on the language of 2b back in post 94 when you discuss the APTI question. I believe you contradict yourself if you rely exclusively on 2b for your conclusion in 94, and then rely exclusively on 2b to say 2b prescribes an APTI in the case of an IW during an APTI.

Using your own words, I have to disagree with your assertion that an actual hierarchy exists in Article 2. I refer you back to your words in post 94: "Too bad that's not how they wrote the rule," ". . ., but that is NOT what the text of the POI rule says," and, "The strict text of the POI rule . . .." If the drafters indended a true hierarchy, we wouldn't be arguing about it--that's how they would have written the rule.

When Article 2 is read as a whole, in context with other rules and Case Book examples that relate to POI, I don't see a purpose to divining a hierarchy. The appropriate option presents itself based on the circumstances of the play situation and a simple process of elimination. Replace the identifying letters with bullets, or scramble the list's "order", and tell me if doing so changes the outcome of any of those Case Book plays you refer to. Using your DF example while dribbling, there is no need to begin with "a". One could begin with "b" or "c", and the result is still "a", because "b" and "c" eliminate themselves, do they not?

I agree with what you say regarding the definition of POI and how APTI fits into it. I don't rely on some hierarchy that is not stated in the text for that, however. Other rules and Case Book examples make it clear that the APTI component of the POI definition is a fairness mechanism, as it is used in the case of a held ball, or ball knocked OOB unseen by an official or by two opponents simultaneously.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm going to drop all the snark and just start dealing with the issue: now, let me ask these basic questions and we'll start from there.

Since you offer no answer or rebuttal to what I said where Nevada quotes me, I take it you want to "start" elsewhere, because you have no answer or rebuttal.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

APTI interrupted by an IW. How do you resume? You've stated before you're using 4-36-2c to go with an AP because there is no team control (TC), is that still your opinion?

My primary answer from Post 78: "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." As far as I could find, there isn't one instance in the books where IW doesn't result in a resumption of play entailing everything that was in existence at the time of the IW, to the extent that is possible. Can you point me to one?

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Endline throwin interrupted by an IW. How do you resume? Are you going with 4-36-2c again?

Standard, non-AP, spot throw-in interrupted by an IW. How do you resume? 4-36-2c? If not, why not?

Same answer. The books seem to treat it the same as an official's TO--or any legally administered TO, I suppose.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Since you offer no answer or rebuttal to what I said where Nevada quotes me, I take it you want to "start" elsewhere, because you have no answer or rebuttal.

You can see it how you want. I see we're at an impasse. Either I'm incapable of dismantling your point, or you're incapable of recognizing that dismantling. In the end, it doesn't matter which of us is right on that point. I felt it was time to simply start over. No points have been conceded either way.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

My primary answer from Post 78: "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." As far as I could find, there isn't one instance in the books where IW doesn't result in a resumption of play entailing everything that was in existence at the time of the IW, to the extent that is possible. Can you point me to one?

Nowhere in the rules are IWs treated differently than DFs. Or am I missing it?

4-36-1 lists all the times POI is to be used, and there isn't a different POI rule for IWs vs DFs.

My point is, if you revert back to the original AP throw-in on an IW, you need to do so for a DF as well. 7-5-3b directs you to 4-36 for DFs, which is a redundant version of 4-36-1.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You can see it how you want. I see we're at an impasse. Either I'm incapable of dismantling your point, or you're incapable of recognizing that dismantling. In the end, it doesn't matter which of us is right on that point. I felt it was time to simply start over. No points have been conceded either way.

and

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No one is saying the heirarchy is spelled out in the rule; . . ..

I don't think of it in terms of points, but this last part is all I was saying--and you agree with me.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

My response to this point, however, is simple.

Sitch: Spot throw-in (non-AP) for A. DF called, during the throw-in, on A2 and B2. Without a heirarchy, how do you determine whether to use 4-36-2b (a new TI for A) or 4-36-2c (an APTI for whomever has the arrow)? There is no team control, and it's during a throw-in, so either could apply. Right? If not, why not?

The very first words I said in this thread:

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 when the game is interrupted.)

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

. . .; but you can't properly apply it without going through them in order.

You're begging the question. Your statement expresses a conclusion which is actually what is in question, here--as far as this part of our discussion is concerned, I mean. We have yet to see whether they must be gone through in a particular order so as to yield consistent results. So far, I haven't come up with a play situation where a particular order changes the outcome, as long as I don't read things into the definition to begin with, and am willing to include other passages in the books.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Nowhere in the rules are IWs treated differently than DFs. Or am I missing it?

That is what I have been arguing since my original post:

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

This is all confirmed by 6-1-2’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.

For NFR, who may be without his book, 6-1-2's subnote reads, "Any rules statement is made on the assumption that no infraction is involved or implied. If such infraction occurs, the rule governing it is followed. For example, a game or extra period will not start with a jump ball if a foul occurs before the ball becomes live." But it would start with a jump ball if an IW occurred before the ball became live! An IW is not an infraction. When an infraction occurs, we are told everything resets, and we follow the rules governing the infraction from that point forward. That is why an APTI becomes history in the case of an interrupting infraction. Everything resets, we follow the course dictated by the infraction, and off we go--with A having retained the arrow for the next APTI. I go on in subsequent posts with additional Rules and Case Book citations which definitely seem to support this.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

4-36-1 lists all the times POI is to be used, and there isn't a different POI rule for IWs vs DFs.

Now, you sound like me--arguing strict adherence to the rules as written. Yes, I agree, and that is why I argue it isn't simply a matter of a definition. Other passages in the books are informative, as well. IWs appear to be like TOs (including officials' TOs)--"do-overs", unless otherwise specified.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

My point is, if you revert back to the original AP throw-in on an IW, you need to do so for a DF as well. 7-5-3b directs you to 4-36 for DFs, which is a redundant version of 4-36-1.

I think I agree with you, here, but I'm missing the import. I don't understand how this disproves that infractions are treated differently than IWs.