|
JR,
I am aware of what that case book play says. It was first published in 2002-03, the season after the rule change which permitted the throw-in team to retain the right to run the end line was implemented.
The rule in question, 7-5-7, has changed a couple of times.
2001-02 version:
"A team retains this privilege if the scoring team commits a violation or foul (before the bonus is in effect) on the ensuing throw-in if the resulting throw-in spot would be on the endline."
2002-03 version:
"A team retains this privilege if the scoring team commits a violation or foul (before the bonus is in effect) and the ensuing throw-in spot would be on the endline."
2004-05 version (which is current):
"A team retains this privilege if the scoring team commits a violation or common foul (before the bonus is in effect) and the ensuing throw-in spot would be on the endline."
Furthermore, there is 4-42-5:
"The throw-in ends when the passed ball touches, or is touched by, an inbounds player other than the thrower."
The NCAA rule is slightly different and has also been changed due to the addition of the team control foul in 2003 and subsequently there being team control during a throw-in in 2004.
NCAA 4-65-5
2003 version (most similar to the current NFHS rule):
A throw-in shall end when the passed ball touches or is legally touched by an inbounds player other than the thrower-in.
2004 version:
Art. 5. A throw-in shall end when the passed ball is controlled by an inbounds player other than the thrower-in.
2006 version:
A throw-in shall end when the passed ball is controlled by an inbounds player. The throw-in may be controlled or touched in bounds by the thrower-in after the ball touches or is legally touched by a player in bounds.
The NCAA wording includes the word "legally" before touched. The NFHS has never included that word.
Therefore the kick never ended the throw-in in the NCAA, but it does end it in NFHS.
So why did the NFHS make the case play ruling that the team could still run the end line following the kicked ball?
Is the concept fair? Yes.
Is the case play ruling consistent with the NFHS rules as written in the rules book? I don't believe so.
I think that NFHS needs to further revise the wording of this rule to make it fit with the ruling in the case book which is obviously how the committee wishes this to be administered.
Lastly, the poor current wording of 7-5-7 necessitated the NFHS adding a part (c) to that case book play in 2003-04 to clarify when the foul or violation which causes the subsequent throw-in needs to occur in order for the running privilege to be retained.
Part (c) includes "legally contacted the ball" and "ending the throw-in." That is the rationale for awarding a designated-spot throw-in.
The 2001-02 version did a better job of making that point by using "on the ensuing throw-in." Why did they change it? To include fouls or violation prior to that throw-in is my guess. That could have been added in a better way.
Bottom line, the NFHS is following the old NCAA rule, not their current rule.
Perhaps team control during the throw-in will become part of the NFHS game shortly. All of this will then change, and I won't have to fret over it.
[Edited by Nevadaref on Jan 9th, 2006 at 04:55 AM]
|