Double Foul During AP Throw-In
 

Play: A1 is holding the ball out of bounds for and alternating-possession throw-in. Prior to A1 releasing the ball, A4 and B5 are called for a double foul. How is play resumed? How is the alternating-possession arrow affected?

POI is the AP throw-in. Ball to the team who had it for the throw-in, arrow will switch once the throw-in is completed.

Had A1 released the ball, same result.
Had A1 released the ball and the ball been tipped but not controlled, then you would have an AP throw-in to the other team (the arrow would have reversed on the tip.)

I don't think fouls affect the AP status, although the POI was attempting the AP throw-in. I suspect the throw-in is an AP throw-in just as with the incomplete one at the time of the double foul.

Assuming FED rules. (going by memory here)
1) no team control during the throw-in.
2) throw-in hadn't ended when double foul occurred, so possession arrow hasn't yet switched.
3) no FTs for a double foul.

So, you report the double foul to the table, and resume play with A getting a second chance at an AP throw-in. After A completes the throw in, switch the possession arrow to B.

Am I right?

Team A arrow throw-in.

Thanks. Just checking to see if RefMag had it right. They didn't.

Double foul goes with POI when there is team control. During a throw-in, there is no player control, hence no team control. So the subsequent throw-in will be based on possession arrow. However, the double foul occurred during a possession arrow throw-in. The foul does not cause the team entitled to the throw-in lose the possession arrow. The arrow stays, and the subsequent throw-in is for the no team control during a double foul go to the arrow throw-in.

And what did RefMag say (what issue was it and was it in the NASO Membership portion of the magazine?

MTD, Sr.

Right result, wrong reason.

1. Double fouls always go to POI. Always.
2. First stop: was there team control? No.
3. Next stop: was a throw-in involved or pending? Yes. Go back to that.

Double foul goes to POI. The arrow doesn't change on a foul, so it remains in A's favour. POI is a situation with no team control, so we use the arrow. Arrow points to A, so A's ball for an APA throw-in.

I'm not sure if that's what you're sayin', Snaq.

Well color me surprised. I don't think I've read the last three issues of Referee that I've received.

Nope, it's not what I'm saying.

Everyone seems to be getting confused by the fact that the throw-in happens to be an AP throw-in.

Anytime a DF happens during a throw-in, you simply resume that throw-in. Since this one is an AP throw-in, you go back and do the AP throw-in and flip the arrow when appropriate.

But we ended up with the same conclusion, and I don't believe that anything I said is incorrect.

That is not correct. POI most definitely involves team control. It's the first thing on the check list.

Nope, not quite. POI is the team last in control, or other activity, such as a throw-in or FT. You only go to the arrow when there is no team control, or no other activity to complete.

For example, change Bob's question to the following: B travels, so A has a throw-in for the violation. The arrow is currently pointing to B. A5 and B5 commit a double foul. As mentioned before, A5 and B5 are both charged for a foul, no FT's, and then A will get the original throw-in as a result of the POI, which was the throw-in they were attempting at the time of the double foul. B would not get an AP throw-in as a result of the double foul.

I never did receive a copy of this year's books, so could you please enter that list for me?

It's a mental one. And your statement concerning POI is still wrong. ;)

Ok, thanks M&M. When I wrote POI in my reply, I meant P in the game OI.

A good way to remember how to administer POI situations (aside from studying the rulebook) is, what would've happened had my partner not blown his/her whistle.

The hi-lighted portion below is incorrect.

Same conclusion, different roads.

Would you use the arrow if the double foul was called during a throw-in following a violation?

I'm going to pick a nit because I know you won't take it personally.

This got me to thinking, maybe we could word this better by saying, "what was happening when the whistle blew?"

+1

There is one exception, that being a shot in flight. Then the POI is determined by whether or not the shot was made.

True, true... perhaps its better to hit the books :-)

True, the only reason I changed it was because "what would have happened" could lead to some incorrect rulings if an official decided that B1 "would have had an easy steal" or something similar.

Coach: Come on ref, he was going to fall down when you blew your whistle! That would've been a travel... POI no?? :D

Fair enough Snaqs. :)

Thanks! Minute details make the difference!

Of course, I could have just read you wrong. :D

Me too:

"A whole bunch of crap that needed to be called." So, why would we want to go back to that?

;) :D

Which is why you don't go back and ask the coach what was happening when the whistle blew.

Good advice. On many levels.

NFHS rules 4-36-1 and 4-36-2(b) covers it in case anybody gives a sh!t.

I wonder if anyone over there ever edits their articles. That wasn't really a toughy.

How badly did they slice this one?

Someone could turn their screw ups into a job opportunity. :)

The point of interruption is the throw-in.

Just one of the many reasons I dropped Referee.

Ok, let me throw this out there. Why is the POI an alternating possession throw-in? The POI rule says that if the interruption occurs during a throw-in, you resume with a throw-in for that team. Nothing in that rule specifies that the throw-in remains an AP throw-in. You simply get the ball for a throw-in due to the penalty of the fouls.

This would be similar to having a kicked ball during an AP throw-in. The resulting throw-in is due to the violation, therefore it's not an AP throw-in.

A single foul during an AP throw-in doesn't cause the arrow to change. A defensive violation during an AP throw-in doesn't cause the arrow to change. So why just assume that a double foul does cause the arrow to change?

The double foul doesn't cause the arrow to change. The completed AP throw-in after the foul causes the arrow to change.

The arrow does NOT change until AFTER a successful throw-in following the POI, unless throw-in team violates. I don't think anyone has suggested that it DOES. Although I could be confused I know that I didn't make any such claim. The new throw-in is the same as the one that was not completed due to the DF--an AP throw-in.

Agreed. It's not the same as a kicked ball violation by B.

There are two separate throw-ins happening in the OP. The first throw-in is for the AP throw-in. The arrow does not move because there is a foul by either team. In this case, by both teams; a double foul. The resumption of play for a double foul is POI. Because there is no team control during a throw-in, the AP arrow is used as the POI. This AP throw-in is for the double foul, not for the original AP throw-in. Hope this helps.

It helps, but it's wrong.

Would you go to an AP throw-in if the DF was called during a throw-in following a violation?

You really need to read the definition of POI in the book.

POI during a throw-in is the throw-in. The lack of team control does not affect the status of the subsequent throw-in. The administration of this play is the same in NCAA, which has TC during a throw-in, as it is in NFHS, which does not have TC during a throw-in.

The rule is that the arrow changes when the throw-in is complete, correct?
If a DF is called prior to the completion of the throw-in, it was never completed. I can't imagine the rules committee wants this play to result in A getting a new throw-in and keep the arrow. They have made it clear that an AP TI is considered to be slightly different than a normal TI, so it seems logical to me to assume they would want us to return to the AP TI if a DF is called during that TI.

The only alternative is to assume the AP TI get ignored, and you return to the TI for A with the arrow not changing from A.

Yep.

4-36-2b
Play shall be resumed by one of the following methods:
b. A free throw or a throw-in when the interruption occurred during this activity or if a team is entitled to such.

Note here that "a free throw" doesn't preclude "two free throws." Just like "a throw-in" doesn't preclude "an AP throw-in."

Yes. There is no team control during a throw-in. You can't give the ball back to the team just because they had the ball for the throw-in, you have to use the AP.

Rule 4-31-1 Art2.c: "An alternating-possession throw-in when neither team is in control and no goal, infraction, nor end of quarter/extra period is involved when the game is interrupted."

Actually, you can.

You should.

By rule, you must.

That may have been RefMag's reasoning. They ruled that A gets the ball for a throw-in (as do we all), but that it is NOT an AP throw-in and the arrow doesn't change after the throw-in ends.

You're completely wrong. Rule 4-36-2(c) is neither relevant or applicable. Did you even bother to read 4-36-2(b)? That states the interruption....i.e. the double foul.....occurred DURING A THROW-IN.

What about the article that comes right before it?

"A free throw or a throw-in when the interruption occurred during this activity or if a team is entitled to such."

JR, Gamer, thank you, you are the first two to direct me to a rules reference. Everyone else has just been talking about what they will do. So, the team has a throw-in, double foul. Report the foul, resume with the throw-in as before. Okay, I can do that. We do the same for the AP throw-in. Call the DF, go back to the throw-in and switch the arrow after the throw-in is complete. Got it, thanks JR and Games

No, we were posting the rule, we just didn't reference it like JR did way back in post # 32. You seemed to know where to look, so I didn't think I needed to give the reference. I should have taken JR's cue, though.

My mistake.

JR posted the rule reference long before your latest

Yes, what we would do because we knew the rule already. What were you basing your administration of the play on?

Actually, that's not true either. I quoted 4-36-2b.

The act can only occur during a FT as two FTs don't occur during a single act.

It makes no difference what type of throw-in it is.

Maybe that's what you were saying, IDK.

Actually I was talking about free throws that are pending, but you're right, only 1 can be pending at a time.

Scrapper and RefMag have it right
 

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 in the play situation.)

All: Like Reff, I appreciate the cite, JR. Besides a definition, however, there are a few others on point, I think. 6-4-5 tells us that a foul by either team during an alternating-possession throw-in “does not cause the throw-in team to lose the possession arrow”. CB 6.4.5 SitA explains that “A violation by team A during an alternating-possession thrown-in is the only way a team loses its turn under the procedure.” We could have free-throws coming up as a result of the infraction during the alternating-possession throw-in, or the other team could be inbounding because of a foul by team A. Simply put, team A’s alternating-possession throw-in is over when the infraction occurs. A keeps the arrow, and we move on. (See below for authority.) Unless something subsequently creates a new alternating-possession throw-in for A, even if the consequence of the infraction, a double-foul, in our case, is team A inbounding the ball, again, the situation has reset, and it is now the normal throw-in that would result from the infraction that caused the interruption.

Although the alternating-possession throw-in is history, it did not “end”, strictly speaking. 6-4-4 tells how an alternating-possession throw-in “ends”: it ends as any throw-in ends. 4-42-5 enumerates the ways throw-ins end. A foul is not one of them. Therefore, a foul pre-empts the “ending” of a throw-in, as defined by the book. Some of you are married to the idea that the “original” throw-in resumes, with all of its original attributes, following the infraction. I have not found a passage in the book that supports this, and have found ones that contradict it. The fact that the alternating-possession throw-in has not “ended” in the formal sense of the book’s meaning suggests that it, well . . ., has not ended, and that if circumstances work out, we go right back to it. But the books don’t say that, they say the contrary. The passages I cite, read together, make it clear that the interruption caused by the infraction results in whatever would follow the interruption, normally. If it is new throw-in for A, it operates as it normally would following a double-foul—no alternating-possession attribute. Consider, if the infraction weren’t a double-foul, free-throws may have resulted, or B may have been awarded the ball for inbounding if fouled by A. Clearly, the original alternating-possession throw-in is history in those situations, and nothing in the book carves out an exception for interruptions involving double-foul infractions that I can find. Scrapper was dead on.

This is all confirmed by 6-2’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.

Referee Magazine is correct, as Scrapper was saying.

For what it’s worth, in BJ’s play situation, it is not material that A1 has not yet released the throw-in. That particular condition turns on whether the ball has yet been legally touched inbounds, (CB 6.4.1 (b)).

Randy, you really need to talk to my friend. His name is Cliff, last name Notes.

1. I don't think Scrapper was saying RefMag was correct.
2. Keep it simple. The DF was called during an AP throw-in. Therefore, the POI is the AP throw-in and the arrow will change when that replacement AP throw-in is completed. (4-36-2b)

All of what you are saying shows that you do not know the meaning of Point of Interruption. If the POI is an alternating possession throw-in then the subsequent throw-in retains that status.

If this had occurred during a non-designated spot throw-in (after a made basket) then guess what. Play would be resumed with Team A entitled to running the end line on the throw-in.

You really need to get in the books and learn what POI is before wasting so many keystrokes. ;)

This play reminds me of one that we talked about a few years ago, and I actually submitted it to a Rules Committee member, b/c we couldn't come to an agreement on it. Here's the original thread:

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...issions-5.html

In the play we submitted, the double foul was committed during a throw-in following a basket, rather than during an AP throw-in, but maybe (I'll let you guys decide) the logic would be the same for both situations. Here's the play, with Mary Struckoff's interp (the blue is my explanation of exactly what we're trying to clarify, and the red is Mary's response as related by the committee member):

So, if the POI in this case is a NON-designated spot throw-in b/c that's the type of throw-in that was in progress at the time of the double foul, my guess (and it's only a guess) is that the answer would be the same for a double foul committed during an AP throw-in.

See you in the tournament chat room later tonight. :)

Randy, I noticed you mentioned my name only because I could stand to read only the first few points of your novel. Seriously, if you want people to start responding to you in a positive way and have a back and forth conversation with you, you're going to have to be truncate your replies by half.

Thanks, Chuck. This makes sense; even if Randy, scrappy, and RefMag disagree with it. :D

Hey, hey!! Randy is one of my astute and succint students of the rules of basektball, :D.

MTD, Sr.

Scrapper said, "Why is the POI an alternating possession throw-in? The POI rule says that if the interruption occurs during a throw-in, you resume with a throw-in for that team. Nothing in that rule specifies that the throw-in remains an AP throw-in." That is the crux of my argument, exactly. Where was Scrapper going, if not where I went?

4-36-2b does not say what you claim. It says nothing about alternating possession, nor anything more generally about original attributes carrying forward. You are reading that in. We talked about citations on another thread, so I’m asking: Which rule specifically states that alternating possession is retained?

You are begging the question: You say it is retained, because it is retained. Where is it written that it is retained?

Regarding your non-designated analogy: You are mistaken. 7-5-7b specifies retention only in the case of a common foul. 7-5-3 mandates a “Designated out-of-bounds spot throw-in nearest to where the ball became dead” in the case of a double foul. The non-designated TI is history. It is now designated at the POI.

I think the Committee person missed the significance of your common-foul reference. 7-5-3 answers it directly. There is no need for “her judgment.” The spot is designated at the POI.

Better?;)

Reporting for duty, sir!

Wait, it's shorter than usual
 

4-36-1 establishes double-foul causality for POI. 2b then anticipates POI application during a throw-in. 2c then deals with AP. Is it plausible to think that, after decades, the Committee has failed to realize that the original throw-in might be an APTI, or that if they did realize it, thought there no need to make explicit the possibility of an interrupted APTI in 2b and how to handle it? That is fantastical! There is no way they intended resumption of an interrupted APTI in 2b, and neglected to mention it. We can’t assume anything. If it isn’t written, it isn’t a rule.

6-1-2’s subnote specifically says that the procedure of an infraction negates and replaces the procedure/rule that was at work at the time of the infraction. Whether it be foul shots or inbounding--whatever that particular infraction’s normal procedure is gets followed--unless otherwise specified, of course. A double foul does not result in an APTI. 6-4-3g specifically states this. It says that if a double foul occurs, and the POI is such that there was no team control (as in our interrupted APTI), an APTI will not follow.

1) NFHS rule 4-36-2(b)

2) NFHS rule 4-36-2(b)

Your problem(s) is that not only do you talk too f'ing much, you don't listen and you can't or won't try to understand what people are trying to tell you.

You'll learn a helluva lot more here listening than talking, especially when you've already shown us you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Sorry, but there it is.

The key with going to the committee person is you're going to the source and get a much better idea of the "intent" they have with the rule itself. The intent of the POI rule is to simply resume where you left off. That's made clear by the answer Chuck received.

At least you're consistent, though. Wrong...but consistent.

Look at it this way: if you do either situation as you suggest (leave the arrow as it is, or take away the endline throw-in and replace it with a designated spot), you're punishing one team over the other. That's specifically what the rule is designed to prevent.

Look at it this way:
What would you do if, instead of a DF, you had to go to POI due to an inadvertent whistle?

Sitch 1: A1 has the ball for an endline throw-in, he throws across the paint to A2, standing OOB. In a momentary brain fart, you blow your whistle for a throw-in violation and immediately realize your error. Are you going to administer an endline throw-in or a spot throw-in? Why?

Sitch 2: A1 has the ball for an AP throw-in. About 3 seconds into your count, the table hits the horn and calls you over. After a brief discussion about player fouls and scorebooks, you're ready to resume play. AP throw-in or standard throw-in?

Don't have NFHS with me so I'll put the NCAA rule out there:

You notice how in "c", the only play specifically referencing a play that was stopped during a throw-in, that the phrase "designated spot" is not included? Do you think there might be a reason for that?

And again using the NCAA rule book:

Gee, BNR, seems an IW would lead Randy to resume play with a spot throw-in.

I know Randy is online, just waiting to hear something from him. :)

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. If that's not enough, there was no team control, and an official's TO is not an infraction, and there is no goal or end-of-period involved at the time of the interruption--seems to meet the definition of POI at 2c, which provides for an APTI. The arrow didn't change, since the original APTI never "ended" the way the book defines a TI as ending. Right, again? Wrong reasons, though, huh--because my reasons don't get you where you were hoping to lead me.

All that blue text for Snaq's and I get ignored. :mad:

Oh, alright:

What up, BNR, dog eat your NFHS book? Nice try, though, trying to cover your *** with a college rule. :D

It's in my house somewhere. I'll find it. I don't think the verbiage is that much different though in terms of POI. I'll be bach.

You have really got to figure out how to quote people properly if you're going to have a discussion like this. Just for the sake of reading ease. I'm only going to address a couple of points.

Oh, as for Scrappy, he was throwing out a hypothetical for the sake of argument. The first words of his post should have told you that.

Let's start here, with your answer to my statement that the rule is designed to prevent one team from gaining an unfair advantage:

I'll let you search for the wording in the book, but it's there. It's actually what all the rules are designed for.

I have to admit, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything; could you elaborate?

As for sitch 1, how can you go to a "non-designated endline throw-in" in spite of your earlier interpretation that POI cannot lead you there? You have an IW (accidental whistle), which the rule tells us we are to follow by resuming with POI. What's your rule reference to make the differentiation here?

First, this completely ignores the fact that the interrupting event occurred during a throw-in.

You've got an IW during a throw-in, which for purposes of the rule is treated the same exact way as a DF; unless you can point me to something that says the two are treated differently. Let's start there.

Which one? These are just the 2 most famous, of course.

http://www.earlymusicsa.org/images/c...johannBach.jpg

http://www.kammerparis.com/images/im...ach_ancien.jpg

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

It helps to have a mouthful of food when you say it.

Though I'm really not sure what y'all are arguing about, but NCAA handles this plays exactly the same as NFHS.

Basically what Randy is saying is that if something occurs that would cause us to resume play from the POI that if the POI is a non-designated spot throw-in it now becomes a designated spot throw-in and if the POI was an AP throw-in it nows becomes just a normal throw-in.

Randy should read NFHS rule 7-5-7(b) and case book play 7.5.7SitB(a) and then STFU.

Note that I read your post, not his. I'm too old to waste my few remaining moments on crap like that.

This is an officials forum, KumquatHead.

The 2 most famous are Over and Bach.

Unless, of course, the interrupting event is an accidental whistle. Then, he argues, you go back to whatever type of throw-in was interrupted. I'm still not sure what he bases the difference on.

Thanks, I just spit Diet Pepsi on my screen. :D

Hasta La Vista, Baby ...
 

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Liu6sEJPd4A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.