Double Foul During AP Throw-In

[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