[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Freddy

The "Sticky" on Interpretations which is posited at the head of our discussion board page mentions this one from 2000/01:
SITUATION 14: After a made basket by Team B, A1 has the run of the end line for a throw-in. A1’s throw-in is intentionally kicked by B1. Is Team A awarded a designated spot throw-in or may it again run the end line for the throw-in? RULING: There is no provision to allow Team A to run the end line. After any violation, the ball shall be put in play from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. No exception to this rule is noted. (7-5-2).
This was a question on our state test this year, and casebook 7.5.7 B clearly mentions such a provision, which seems to indicate the 2000/01 "terp" is no longer correct.
My question is this: these NFHS interpretations, are they so set in stone that they merit the top/front/center position of the discussion board? Or are these interps sometimes reversed or modified in subsequent years by clarifications in the rule book or new citations in the casebook?
Eager for any clarification any can provide.

They are provided for those to look through and review. In my opinion, it was a great idea and a neat little project for those who researched and dug up the information the NFHS has provided. While they aren't set in stone (as you have pointed out, changes/revisions cause them to be invalid), I think they deserve to be at the top. Good information.


Yes, they are. As you have provided proof of such actions which show in your situation they retain the right to run the endline following the violation (7-5-7b).