Throw-in -- running the line (or not!)

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by OverAndBack
Okay, what if, just in case, the team entitled to the throw-in calls time out. When they come back from the time out, can they still run the baseline on the throwin? [/B]

If I understand your case correctly, you have made basket by A, B or A calls TO. By rule, coming out of the TO, B has ball on endline and right to run endline. TO does not change that right.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by OverAndBack
Now, this has gotten a little convoluted, but for the new guy, just tell me if I'm reading this correctly: If a team has the ability to run the baseline (after a made basket, which is the only time that's in effect, correct?)

A team has that right after a made or awarded goal.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

No, Dan, although it sort of sounds that way. The difference is that in the case of the kicked ball, the violation occured before the ball was legally toched inbounds. In the case of the ball knocked OOB, the ball was legally touched and then went OOB.

Do NOT confuse this issue with when the throw-in ends (4-41-5). But for this particular situation, the determining factor is whether the violation (or foul) occured before or after the ball was legally touched.

Chuck,
This logic would be just fine for NCAA, but it is not convincing for NFHS. And I know you aren't talking about NCAA because you cite 4-41-5, the NFHS rule, not 4-64-5, which is the NCAA listing.
The problem with your explanation is that the NFHS rule does NOT include the word "legally", only the NCAA manual does.
Here they are:
NFHS 4-41-5 ... The throw-in ends when the passed ball touches, or is touched by, an inbounds player other than the thrower.

NCAA 4-64-5 ... A throw-in shall end when the passed ball touches or is legally touched by an inbounds player other than the thrower-in.

Hence, you cannot apply your logic of legally touching and the timing of when the throw-in ends to rule on this NFHS play.

If you look at one of my earlier posts in this thread I already mentioned this and then wrote, "The kicking/fisting of the ball has been interpreted to be DURING the throw-in even in NFHS, hence the right to run is retained." The throw-in really ends with the kick in NFHS, but the casebook rulings make it clear how the rules committee is INTERPRETING the violation to be during the throw-in so that the throwing team may still run. They are fudging a bit here. They really should simply put the word "legally" into their book!
As a last note there is also a parallel difference in the starting of the game clock. In NFHS the clock should be started and then stopped by the timer on a throw-in pass which is kicked because 5-9-3+4 do not include the word legally, but the clock is not started until the ball is legally touched in NCAA since 5-11-3+4 do include that word! I'm sure you already knew that.


[Edited by Nevadaref on Feb 10th, 2004 at 03:40 AM]

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Chuck,
The problem with your explanation is that the NFHS rule does NOT include the word "legally", only the NCAA manual does.

you cannot apply your logic of legally touching and the timing of when the throw-in ends to rule on this NFHS play.

No offense, Nevada, but re-read the second paragraph of my post. I thought I made clear that the rationale for the ruling has nothing to do with when the throw-in ends. The point of the legal touching is NOT that the throw-in has ended (or not); the point of the legal touching is relevant ONLY for the purpose of determining whether the throw-in team retains the right to run the endline.

Again, just to be clear, I am not equating legal touching to the end of the throw-in.

If the violation or foul occurs before the ball is legally touched inbounds, the throw-in team retains the ability to run the endline. If the violation or foul occurs after the ball is legally touched inbounds, a designated spot throw-in results.

[RoyalsCoach]

Does this mean when a foul occurs immediately on the throw in the official has to determine if it is foul-catch or catch-foul? If it is that close you probably would rule in favor of the throw in team. But, if it is obvious that the ball was first touched by the throw in team and then then foul occured. Do they lose the running privilege? I am not sure that is the intent of rule. I am not talking about a catch and the player has a chance to move. What if it is a bang bang play? Catch-Foul.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by RoyalsCoach
Does this mean when a foul occurs immediately on the throw in the official has to determine if it is foul-catch or catch-foul? If it is that close you probably would rule in favor of the throw in team. But, if it is obvious that the ball was first touched by the throw in team and then then foul occured. Do they lose the running privilege? I am not sure that is the intent of rule. I am not talking about a catch and the player has a chance to move. What if it is a bang bang play? Catch-Foul.

Yes, the official must decide the order. Foul before catch and the throwin team retains the endline (assuming the foul was closest to the endline.)

[Nevadaref]

Chuck, You are a good official and from what I have read on this board a great person, so certainly no offense would ever be taken by anything you wrote to me. Hopefully, you take my posts in a like manner. Now back to the friendly rules discussion. We seem to agree on the rules, it's the underlying why that is the focus of our debate.

I'll start by saying that 7-5-7 is not well worded. When the rule change was made a couple of years ago, they didn't even bother to put a time frame in the wording. We must extrapolate for ourselves what they meant. In my opinion, they meant "if the scoring team commits a violation or foul (DURING THE THROW-IN)..."

Originally posted by ChuckElias
I thought I made clear that the rationale for the ruling has nothing to do with when the throw-in ends.

So what exactly do you think is the rationale for the ruling?
My opinion is that the determining factor is when the throw-in ends, with the proviso that a first-touch kick/fist violation is considered to have occurred during the throw-in. I believe that the NFHS committee deemed this to be the case because the violation and the end of the throw-in occur simultaneously here and they had to make a choice of whether to include the action at the very end of the throw-in as being during the throw-in time frame or not. Since they didn't wish to give the defense an unintended advantage for committing a violation, they chose to put it within the throw-in time period.

Originally posted by ChuckElias
The point of the legal touching is NOT that the throw-in has ended (or not); the point of the legal touching is relevant ONLY for the purpose of determining whether the throw-in team retains the right to run the endline.

If by legal touching you mean any touch that is not a fist or kick, I would have to disagree because of the following play. A1 makes a throw-in after Team B scores. The throw-in pass has crossed the inbounds plane of the end line, but since it was thrown in a path roughly parallel to the endline, B1 is able to first step on the endline and then intercept the pass. This is a throw-in violation according to 9-2-10. You would have a hard time explaining to a coach or someone not well-versed in the rules why this is not a legal touch, although I'll accept it, if you state that by legal touch you meant any touch which does not constitute a simultaneous violation.
Notice that Team A would still retain the right to run on the ensuing throw-in on this play because this violation should also be considered to have occurred during the throw-in. (simultaneous touch and violation) Afterall, it is a throw-in violation!

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Again, just to be clear, I am not equating legal touching to the end of the throw-in.

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

Originally posted by ChuckElias
If the violation or foul occurs before the ball is legally touched inbounds, the throw-in team retains the ability to run the endline. If the violation or foul occurs after the ball is legally touched inbounds, a designated spot throw-in results.

This is true, but all you are doing is describing whether the foul or violation occurred before or after the end of the throw-in. That is the underlying determining factor.

This would all be so easy if the NFHS would just add the word legally to its rule. I don't even want to talk about the NCAA logic now that they have made it so convoluted due to the team control foul concept.

[Nevadaref]

Simply put, an illegal touch does end a throw-in, but also occurs during it, not after it has ended.

[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.