Double Foul During AP Throw-In

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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

No, it wasn't all you were saying. We're saying it's not written that way, but it has to be applied that way. You are disagreeing with the second half of that.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

Please answer my most recent question, and we'll see.

Two problems, your theses are simply too long, and you're over thinking the rules. Simply treat them all (IWs, DFs, etc) the same as prescribed in 4-36-1, and go through articles a, b, and c in order.

The rules aren't meant to be complex philosophical problems requiring an advanced degree in rhetoric or mathematics.

[Jurassic Referee]

[BillyMac]

[bob jenkins]

It either is or it isn't, and everyone can make up his or her own mind.