What does Freddy think?

[just another ref]

If one player from each team has a foot out of bounds, I don't think you have a violation at all, at any level.

Perhaps we need further clarification of the play at hand.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If one player from each team has a foot out of bounds, I don't think you have a violation at all, at any level.

Perhaps we need further clarification of the play at hand.

I think he meant they both were a foot out of bounds, not "had" a foot out of bounds.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I think he meant they both were a foot out of bounds, not "had" a foot out of bounds.

Right, as in 12 inches out of bounds (though it was a little more than that).

Anyway, are you sure you would go to the arrow? I think all double infractions result in POI, which would only lead to the arrow if there were no team control.

[Adam]

4-36-1, POI is for double fouls. 6-4-3c, simultaneous floor violations go straight to AP.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

6-4-3c, simultaneous floor violations go straight to AP.

Hmm, indeed so. Thanks. I wonder what the rationale is for that.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Hmm, indeed so. Thanks. I wonder what the rationale is for that.

Honestly, I think they're just slow to update it. They changed DFs to POI, because they happen more often. I think if they'd considered SVs, they would have made them POI as well.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Hmm, indeed so. Thanks. I wonder what the rationale is for that.

Not sure why I didn't think of it earlier, but if double violations go POI, then there's no punishment at all for the offense. Going to the arrow either takes the ball away or makes them use up a turn with the AP.

With double fouls, there is at least the addition to the foul count.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

4-36-1, POI is for double fouls. 6-4-3c, simultaneous floor violations go straight to AP.

Which brings up the next question. In this play, I find it very unlikely that they both went out at the same time. First thing that comes to mind is that the offensive player went out first, chased by the defender.

Bainsey?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Which brings up the next question. In this play, I find it very unlikely that they both went out at the same time. First thing that comes to mind is that the offensive player went out first, chased by the defender.

Bainsey?

Actually, one kid claims he was pushed by the other.

I was the lead. I probably had excessive focus in the lane (kids were camping out there frequently in that game), then looked at the end line to see A-1 and B-2 running significantly out of bounds, on the opposite side. I didn't see how they got there, so I just dealt with the issue and went POI (which wasn't correct by rule). No-one went OOB the rest of the game.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Actually, one kid claims he was pushed by the other.

I was the lead. I probably had excessive focus in the lane (kids were camping out there frequently in that game), then looked at the end line to see A-1 and B-2 running significantly out of bounds, on the opposite side. I didn't see how they got there, so I just dealt with the issue and went POI (which wasn't correct by rule). No-one went OOB the rest of the game.

I hope they change this rule to make it POI. Best case scenario is yours, where both teams do it. You can blow the whistle, tell them to stop, and they won't do it again.