Running the Baseline??

[Smoke]

What is the rule on running the baseline after a made basket and a time out It is still legal Is it not?

[mick]

Originally posted by Smoke
What is the rule on running the baseline after a made basket and a time out It is still legal Is it not?

Smoke,
It is also important to wave the baseline while you remind the offensive player they can still run it, thereby, reminding the defense in the same action.
mick

[Edited by mick on Oct 23rd, 2000 at 10:43 PM]

[rpwall]

It is also a good idea to "wave" prior to the players clearing the court for the timeout. That lets everyone know what will occur after the timeout.

[mikesears]

Legal.

[Mark Padgett]

After a made or awarded score, the inbounding team may run the baseline. Nothing can change this, except something happening that takes away their right to inbound at all, like a technical foul call

As long as they keep the right to inbound at all following a made or awarded score, they may run. This means timeouts, delay warnings, etc., have no bearing on their right to run.

I guess the only exception to this theory is if a personal foul is called prior to the inbound. Then, if there is no bonus, there could be a spot throw in by the same team.

[Edited by Mark Padgett on Oct 25th, 2000 at 12:14 PM]

[hoopsrefBC]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
After a made or awarded score, the inbounding team may run the baseline. Nothing can change this, except something happening that takes away their right to inbound at all, like a technical foul call.

As long as they keep the right to inbound at all following a made or awarded score, they may run. This means timeouts, delay warnings, etc., have no bearing on their right to run.

Hey Mark,

Could you tell me if NFHS has gone to awarding the ball to the offensive team after a technical has been called. If so, my understanding is that even after a technical foul call the ball would be placed at the new offensive teams displosal on the baseline, and they may run the baseline.

For example.
Team A scores, coach/player calls timeouts legal timeout. Non remaining.

Penelty: grant timeout, award a one shot ('T')penelty and award the ball to team B under for inbounds on baseline. Team B still has the right to run.

other question.

Team A scores, team B member takes the ball out of bounds and is attempting a throw in, before the ball is released by the thrower-in, a player on team A committs a personal foul.

My understanding is that team B would keep its right to run the baseline.!

Thanks for the help

SH

[Mark Padgett]

[QUOTE
Hey Mark,

Could you tell me if NFHS has gone to awarding the ball to the offensive team after a technical has been called. If so, my understanding is that even after a technical foul call the ball would be placed at the new offensive teams displosal on the baseline, and they may run the baseline.

For example.
Team A scores, coach/player calls timeouts legal timeout. Non remaining.

Penelty: grant timeout, award a one shot ('T')penelty and award the ball to team B under for inbounds on baseline. Team B still has the right to run.

other question.

Team A scores, team B member takes the ball out of bounds and is attempting a throw in, before the ball is released by the thrower-in, a player on team A committs a personal foul.

My understanding is that team B would keep its right to run the baseline.!

Thanks for the help

SH

[/B][/QUOTE]

First answer: the NF has not changed its rule of awarding possession as well as two (not one) shots on a technical foul. The inbound spot is at the division line opposite the scorer's table. I am still in favor of changing this to eliminate the possession part of the penalty. This point has been discussed to death previously, and I hope eventually that the NF will come to its senses and change this inequitable rule.

Second answer: I edited my post above to address this. If there was a personal foul called prior to inbound and there was no bonus situation, there would be a spot throw-in due to the personal foul.

[Todd VandenAkker]

The NCAA, of course, HAS changed its handling of technical fouls, so that the ball in the posted situations would in fact be inbounded on the baseline. I'm sure that made you happy, Mark, but all the changes with T's sure makes it more complicated for officials.

[hoopsrefBC]

Originally posted by Todd VandenAkker
The NCAA, of course, HAS changed its handling of technical fouls, so that the ball in the posted situations would in fact be inbounded on the baseline. I'm sure that made you happy, Mark, but all the changes with T's sure
makes it more complicated for officials.

There arn't that hard of a change. The only differece are that some are one shot and some are two and that the ball goes back into play to the team that had the ball where/when play was stopped. Chris Webber's last game ring any bells?????one shot and Mich retains the ball.!!!

[BktBallRef]

Chris Webber's last game ring any bells?????one shot and Mich retains the ball.!!!

It was justice. It traveled after he got the rebound but the trail official missed it. But it wouldn't have mattered. Carolina would have won anyway! :^)

[mick]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Chris Webber's last game ring any bells?????one shot and Mich retains the ball.!!!

It was justice. It traveled after he got the rebound but the trail official missed it. But it wouldn't have mattered. Carolina would have won anyway! :^)

Snappy comeback,ay?

[Todd VandenAkker]

Originally posted by hoopsrefBC

There arn't that hard of a change. The only differece are that some are one shot and some are two and that the ball goes back into play to the team that had the ball where/when play was stopped. Chris Webber's last game ring any bells?????one shot and Mich retains the ball.!!!

While the changes may not be "hard" per se, they nonetheless require the refs to do a lot more thinking now about what type of technical it is, how many shots will be required, which team had the ball at the time of the call, where was the ball located at the time of the call, if its on the baseline can the player run or is the spot designated, etc., etc. All this, compared to: 2 shots, ball OOB at the division line. The latter, you have to agree, was much simpler in implementation.

[Mark Padgett]

[All this, compared to: 2 shots, ball OOB at the division line. The latter, you have to agree, was much simpler in implementation. [/B]

I always have had a problem with NF rules that are there just because it makes things less complicated or easier. That's the excuse they gave for taking away the jump ball and going to the AP. They said too many officials were tossing the ball poorly. The remedy is not to take the toss away, but do a better job of training officials to toss.

It's the same with the possession part of a technical penalty. It is inequitable since it penalizes a team on offense more than it does a team on defense for the same infraction. In the NBA, they recognize that a technical is something that happens "outside the normal play of the game". So, they "freeze" the game, shoot the technical and then "restart" the game where they left off. If neither team had team control at the time, they have a jump. I can't think of anything fairer than that. I really don't care if it's one shot or two, just so the possession aspect is taken out. The NF has it in because it makes it easier to administer (I was told this by someone at the NF a few years ago). I contend this is a piss-poor reason to have a rule.

While we're at it regarding equity, how about shooting player control fouls? Why not? Aren't they just as wrong as a foul committed by a player without the ball? Why should the fact that a player was in player control when he commits a foul mean that foul is any less serious?

[Todd VandenAkker]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
The NF has it in because it makes it easier to administer (I was told this by someone at the NF a few years ago). I contend this is a piss-poor reason to have a rule.

While we're at it regarding equity, how about shooting player control fouls? Why not? Aren't they just as wrong as a foul committed by a player without the ball? Why should the fact that a player was in player control when he commits a foul mean that foul is any less serious?

Just observing that it IS more complicated, though I personally don't have a problem with it either way (but admittedly don't feel as strongly about the "inequity" as you do, Mark). Have to admit, too, that I've often wondered about the player-control penalty for the same reason you mention: Why is one foul less serious than another? I'm sure there was a reason for writing the rule this way originally. Do you know the history or reasoning behind it?

BTW, I always kinda LIKED tossing the ball for jump balls, but I saw so many people that just couldn't do it well (and I still do) that I can see the reason for the change.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

While we're at it regarding equity, how about shooting player control fouls? Why not? Aren't they just as wrong as a foul committed by a player without the ball? Why should the fact that a player was in player control when he commits a foul mean that foul is any less serious?

You are already wiping a possible bucket. That is the point differential that is equitable with non PC fouls. Of course, not all PC fouls involve shoots, but many do. But, if you do wipe the bucket, the fouling team has just lost 2-3 points and then you send a player to the line for up to 2 more undefended shots. That sounds really inequitable to me.

If it were to be different, it would need to be PC fouls would only occur while in the act of shooting. All others would be common fouls. That would be a more sensible balance than shooting all PC fouls.