Chuck, You are a good official and from what I have read on this board a great person, so certainly no offense would ever be taken by anything you wrote to me. Hopefully, you take my posts in a like manner. Now back to the friendly rules discussion. We seem to agree on the rules, it's the underlying why that is the focus of our debate.
I'll start by saying that 7-5-7 is not well worded. When the rule change was made a couple of years ago, they didn't even bother to put a time frame in the wording. We must extrapolate for ourselves what they meant. In my opinion, they meant "if the scoring team commits a violation or foul (DURING THE THROW-IN)..."
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
I thought I made clear that the rationale for the ruling has nothing to do with when the throw-in ends.
|
So what exactly do you think is the rationale for the ruling?
My opinion is that the determining factor is when the throw-in ends, with the proviso that a first-touch kick/fist violation is considered to have occurred during the throw-in. I believe that the NFHS committee deemed this to be the case because the violation and the end of the throw-in occur simultaneously here and they had to make a choice of whether to include the action at the very end of the throw-in as being during the throw-in time frame or not. Since they didn't wish to give the defense an unintended advantage for committing a violation, they chose to put it within the throw-in time period.
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
The point of the legal touching is NOT that the throw-in has ended (or not); the point of the legal touching is relevant ONLY for the purpose of determining whether the throw-in team retains the right to run the endline.
|
If by legal touching you mean any touch that is not a fist or kick, I would have to disagree because of the following play. A1 makes a throw-in after Team B scores. The throw-in pass has crossed the inbounds plane of the end line, but since it was thrown in a path roughly parallel to the endline, B1 is able to first step on the endline and then intercept the pass. This is a throw-in violation according to 9-2-10. You would have a hard time explaining to a coach or someone not well-versed in the rules why this is not a legal touch, although I'll accept it, if you state that by legal touch you meant any touch which does not constitute a simultaneous violation.
Notice that Team A would still retain the right to run on the ensuing throw-in on this play because this violation should also be considered to have occurred during the throw-in. (simultaneous touch and violation) Afterall, it is a throw-in violation!
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Again, just to be clear, I am not equating legal touching to the end of the throw-in.
|
Why not? It certainly does end the throw-in.
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
If the violation or foul occurs before the ball is legally touched inbounds, the throw-in team retains the ability to run the endline. If the violation or foul occurs after the ball is legally touched inbounds, a designated spot throw-in results.
|
This is true, but all you are doing is describing whether the foul or violation occurred before or after the end of the throw-in. That is the underlying determining factor.
This would all be so easy if the NFHS would just add the word legally to its rule. I don't even want to talk about the NCAA logic now that they have made it so convoluted due to the team control foul concept.