[ChuckElias]

Wow. Lotta stuff in that post, Nevada. I'm not gonna try to answer all of it, ok? But I'll try to address the main point of this thread and see if I can make my point more clearly.

Originally posted by Nevadaref

So what exactly do you think is the rationale for the ruling?

Here's the rationale for whether the throw-in team retains the right to run the endline or not after a foul or violation by the defense. If the violation or foul by the defense occured before the ball was legally touched inbounds by a player other than the inbounder, and the ensuing throw-in spot will be on the endline, then the inbounding team retains the right to run the endline.

If there is a legal touch of the ball inbounds by a player other than the inbounder and then a violation or foul is committed by the defense, the ensuing throw-in will be from a designated spot, even if that spot is on the endline.

That's the rationale. Is that a little clearer? I'll say it one more time. If the foul or violation by the defense is committed before a legal touch of the ball inbounds (example: the first touching of the ball is a kick by the defense), then the offense gets to run the endline on the ensuing throw-in.

If there's a legal touch and then a violation (example: ball is touched by the defense, but then deflects OOB), the offense will have a designated spot throw-in.

I don't think I can be any clearer than that.

Why not? It certainly does end the throw-in.

Yes, a legal touch does end the throw-in, but the throw-in can also be ended in other ways. Therefore "legal touch" is not synonymous with "end of throw-in". You can't equate them, logically.

I think I see part of the confusion. I think you just want to say that if the violation occurs before the throw-in ends, the offense can still run the endline. But that's not right; it won't work. In the kick case above, the violation did not occur before the throw-in ended. The kick (even tho it was illegal) ended the throw-in. So the violation and the end of the throw-in are simultaneous. So if we use the logic that the violation has to be before the throw-in ends, we have to give the ensuing throw-in from a designated spot (b/c the violation didn't happen before the end of the throw-in; it happened at the same time as the end of the throw-in). Which goes completely against the intent of the rule.

So instead, we say that the violation has to occur before the first legal touch.

I'm not sure that's any clearer, but that's the difference.