Intentional Foul ...

[BillyMac]

Got our IAABO Inside The Lines email today with this quiz question.

After Team B scores, B-3 intentionally fouls A-3 during Team A’s end-line throw-in. A-3 is awarded two free throws, and Team A gets a designated-spot throw-in, even if it’s on the end line.

True or False?

Simple question.

I'm certain that, in a real game, I would have awarded a run the endline throwin.

I got it wrong, dead wrong, no tricky wording, no way to blame the NFHS for ambiguities, just dead wrong.

Answer: True. This differs from a common foul where Team A retains the right to move along the end line.

Basketball rules are difficult.

And I don't believe that I can blame this one on forty-five years of rule changes confusing me, as I often do.

Basketball rules are difficult.

[JRutledge]

There once was an interpretation that gave the ball on the endline (if in the proper spot) and gave the team the same privilege after the FTs. If I recall correctly, that went away without much conversation. There was a case play, and it was removed. So this is what we are left with, unless I am missing something.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

And I don't believe that I can blame this one on forty-five years of rule changes confusing me, as I often do.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There once was an interpretation that gave the ball on the endline (if in the proper spot) and gave the team the same privilege after the FTs. If I recall correctly, that went away without much conversation. There was a case play, and it was removed. So this is what we are left with ...

Thanks, JRutledge.

I feel better now.

[bob jenkins]

The rule was in effect in 01-02:

SITUATION 2: Team A scores a field goal. B1 picks up the ball and steps out of bounds at the end line to prepare for a throw-in. Before the throw-in is completed, A2 is called for an intentional (or flagrant) foul on B3 near the end line. RULING: B3 would shoot the two free throws for the intentional (or flagrant) foul with the lane cleared. Team B will be permitted to run the end line on the ensuing throw-in. (7-5-7, 7-5-11)

But, it's been It's a HS / NCAA rules difference that has been in effect for at least 20 years:

2005-05 SITUATION 6: Team A scores a field goal. B1 picks up the ball and steps out of bounds at the end line to prepare for a throw-in. Before the throw-in is completed, A2 is called for an intentional (or flagrant) foul on B3 near the end line. RULING: B3 would shoot the two free throws for the intentional (or flagrant) foul with the lane cleared. Team B will then have a designated spot throw-in on the end line. (7-5-7, 7-5-11)

In HS, a team retains the right to run the endline when a common foul has been committed. In NCAA (just NCAAM now -- in NCAAW all F1 / F2s are at the division line for a couple of years) it's a common foul OR an F1/F2:

1. A common foul is committed near the end line by the defense before
the bonus is in effect or a technical foul is assessed against either team;
2. A flagrant 1 or 2 personal foul by the defensive team is committed near
the end line;
3. The ball is intentionally kicked by the defensive team along the end
line during the throw-in; or
4. A timeout is granted.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

2005-05 SITUATION 6: Team A scores a field goal. B1 picks up the ball and steps out of bounds at the end line to prepare for a throw-in. Before the throw-in is completed, A2 is called for an intentional (or flagrant) foul on B3 near the end line. RULING: B3 would shoot the two free throws for the intentional (or flagrant) foul with the lane cleared. Team B will then have a designated spot throw-in on the end line. (7-5-7, 7-5-11)

In HS, a team retains the right to run the endline when a common foul has been committed ...

Thanks bob.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

This exact Situation was brought to me during the 2023-24 school year, and there was a time when the Team B would have retained its right to take its Throw-in anywhere along its Backcourt Endline. And I have started (and stopped until know I guess) to write a Rules Change for 2024-25, lol, and now it looks like for 2026-27.

The oldest NFHS Rules Book and Case Book that I have that is NOT in "The Attic" (or downloaded onto my computer) is from 2004-05, and CB Play 7.5.7 Sit. D has an asterisk (*) in front of it meaning that either it has been revised or it is a new CB Play. Without looking at the 2003-04 NFHS Case Book (which is in "The Attic") I cannot say for certain if CB Play 7.5.7 Sit. D was revised or is a new CB Play. But ...

My instinct is telling me that 2004-05 CB Play 7.5.7 Sit. D has been revised because 2001-02 NFHS (Pre-)Season Rules Interpretations Situation 2 is exactly (Bob, thanks for posting it for me.) the same as 2004-05 CB Play 7.5.7 Sit. D (and 2004-05 NFHS (Pre-)Season Interpretations Situation 6) but its RULING allows Team B to take its Throw-in from anywhere along its Backcourt Endline.

The applicable NFHS Rules for 2004-05 do not show any changes and without checking the 2003-04 NFNS Rules I cannot say if there were any changes were made in 2003-04. BUT, the 2004-05 Rules Changes for R7-S5-A7 state that it was "Clarified that a team will retain end-line run privileges after a violation or a common foul.". This leaves me to believe that R7-S5-A7 was changed in 2003-04 to disallow Team B from making a Throw-in from anywhere along its Backcourt Endline after an Intentional or Flagrant Foul and the changes we see in 2004-05 is just clarifying the changes that were made in 2003-04.

I think that question that many people have is what was the Committee's Rationale for making the change from allowing Team B to take its Throw-in anywhere along its Backcourt Endline to making it the ensuing Throw-in a Designated Spot Throw-in, and I am making an educated guess is that allowing Team B to retain its right to take the ensuing Throw-in anywhere along its Backcourt Endline too much of a Penalty against Team A after already receiving two FTAs due the Intentional or Flagrant Foul.

My NOTE (1.0): I retired from women's college and men's jr. college after the 2008-07 school year and I will have go back through my men's and women's Rules and Case Books since then. Bob, if you want to email me with your women's college input just PM here and I will give you my email address; I will also talk with Jon Levinson. I do have two several friends at the men's college level who I will contact.

I guess I will have to have Mark, Jr. climb up into "The Attic" and drag down some boxes for me and I will have to get back to writing a Rules and Case Book change for 2026-27. And why you ask, because I personally think that Team B should retain its right to take its Throw-in from anywhere along its Backcourt Endline. I will entertain everyone's opinion.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. If anyone would like to read what I have already put on paper (actually 0s and 1s on a computer file) just PM me here with your email address.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I personally think that Team B should retain its right to take its Throw-in from anywhere along its Backcourt Endline.

Agree, but it's not by interpretation.

[The_Rookie]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There once was an interpretation that gave the ball on the endline (if in the proper spot) and gave the team the same privilege after the FTs. If I recall correctly, that went away without much conversation. There was a case play, and it was removed. So this is what we are left with, unless I am missing something.

Peace

Had the opportunity to meet Rutledge in Colorado Springs last week!