Double Foul During AP Throw-In

[RandyBrown]

No, 7.5.3(d) is not identical, because the interruption in my situation occurs "during a throw-in." 7.5.3(d) occurs duing a try; since the try is successful, the applicable rule is 4-36-2b, "a team is entitled to such."
Because you read into POI's definition at 2b what is not written there, you disregard Rule 7, the rule that governs TIs, and Resumption-of-Play Procedures. 7-5-7 is dispositive. Your entire hang-up with every substantive point we have debated in this thread stems from your reliance on your conceptualization of a mere definition in spite of other rules to the contrary. Nevada pointed this out to you. I thought you accepted his correction, but obviously not.

CB 7.5.3(d) interprets 7-5-7. It tells us that 7-5-7 does not strip the non-scoring team of a NDTI in the case of an IW when it occurs during a live ball, no team control, with a goal involved. These conditions are facts that are not altered by you referring to it as a "try". The material conditions are identical in both situations. As you pointed out, 7-5-7b mentions a couple of conditions in which the ND privilege is retained, but it does not say those are the only conditions where it is retained. If they intended what you are suggesting, they would have added the word "only". They are simply expressing a couple of notable examples, and do not say those two are exhaustive. Stating otherwise would be reading into the rules something not written, again. Your reading of 7-5-7b is disproven by CB 7.5.3(d), because the condition in CB 7.5.3(d) is not one of the conditions mentioned in 7-5-7b, yet ND is maintained, anyway. Why would it be retained before the goal, while the ball is in flight, but not after the goal while it is at the disposal of the non-scoring team? You can provide no material difference between those two situations, and I can provide those three material commonalities.

I'm not ignoring it; it's quite the indictment of your ability to read the rules, actually. 4-36-2c applies to situations where there is no team control, throw-in, or free throw involved.
Just quote 2c. 2c says nothing about self-exclusion in the case of TI or FT. You are folding 2b into 2c's parameters. Quote 2c in its entirety, and only 2c! Your APTI situation meets 2c, period. Forget 2b. Nothing says to ignore 2c if there is a TI involved. You are reading that in. If you just can't let go of 2b, think of 2b prescribing a TI, and 2c prescribing that the TI will be an APTI. No where does the language of the definition instruct us to ignore 2c when 2b works.

[RandyBrown]

If you want to quote mutliple posts

Got it.

Why don't they archive it?

I suppose so. In regard to their interpretations, how do you read their caveat, "They do not set aside nor modify any rule."?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

In regard to their interpretations, how do you read their caveat, "They do not set aside nor modify any rule."?

I read it as saying that they're interpreting the rule.

But whatinthehell do I know?

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I read it as saying that they're interpreting the rule.

That may have gone without saying, Jurassic. I'm more interested in what Snaq seemed to be saying in posts 107 and 112, that these interpretations are never "designed" to change a rule, but sometimes do--in some sense. Obviously, if the publishing of these interpretations sometimes results in changing the existing interpretations of a significant number of officials, the effect approaches a rules change. If you've ever experienced that, yourself, do you always react with a "thank you" to the drafters for setting you straight, or have you sometimes determined they have changed a rule, and reject the interpretation on those grounds.