Had this one Saturday night, girls V game. TeamA scores a bucket, B1 attempts to throw the ball inbounds, the ball hits A1, and goes out of bounds over the end line. I see my partner signal she still has the line, make a mental note to discuss it at half time, and we move on.

At halftime, I read case play 7.5.7 Situation B, part (c).

<b>Team A scores a field goal. B1 picks up the ball after the made basket, then proceeds out of bounds to start the throw-in process. B1 runs along the end line out of bounds while attempting to find an open teammate for the throw-in. Immediately after B1 releases the throw-in pass, (c) the ball is deflected out of bounds across the end line off of A2.<br><br>Ruling: A2 legally contacted the ball and subsequently hit it out of bounds, ending the throw-in. Team B is awarded a designated spot throw-in on the end line.</b>

My partner agrees, realizes he kicked it, and we go on. Well tonight (Sunday) I get a call from a still-in-denial partner and we look at <b><i>rule book</b></i> play 7.5.7

<b><i>After a goal or awarded goal as in 7-4-3, the team not credited with the score shall make the throw-in from the end of the court where the goal was made and from any point outside the end line. 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 have been on the end line. Any player of the team may make a direct throw-in or he/she may pass the ball along the end line to a teammate(s) outside the boundary line.</b></i>

Sounds like two contradictory rulings for the same sitch. We ultimately agree to disagree, and pursue additional opinions. I still think she should have had a spot. What am I missing!?!?!

I understand the conflict between the 2 interpretations and I don't have my rule book with me, but here is how I would handle this situation.

It seems to me that when the throw-in is touched by the defensive player (Team B)the throw-in then is completed. If the defender has caused the ball to go out of bounds then Team A (offense) retains possession of the ball and has a designated spot throw-in. Why should Team B be penalized for good defensive work, even though the ball went out of bounds?

There are two violations that come to mind to which R7-S5-S7 applies: 1) A throw-in violation by the non-throwing team. In this case the only violation that I can think of is breaking the throw-in plane. And 2) After the throw-in passes is released by the thrower, a player from the non-throwing team is the first to touch the ball but the touching is an intentional kick. This second violation is covered in a Casebook Play if my memory serves me correct.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Feb 8th, 2004 at 11:10 PM]

Here's the difference. An intentionally kicked ball is a violation. A touched ball is not. If defender B2 intentionally kicks the ball in this situation, A1 is still allowed to run the endline because of the violation. If B2 touches the ball and it deflects out of bounds, the touch has caused the ball to go OOB, but the touch itself is not a violation. The touch itself is a legal defensive play. In this case, a spot throw in for team A.

Agreed
 

TriggerMN has this correct!

Not a violation, just a ball OOB. A1 failed to successfully inbound the ball to a teammate when they had endline priviledge. Do not penalize B for good defense.

Here is another way to process this:

A1 attempts the throw-in. B1 slaps the ball back OOB and A1 catches it while standing OOB. Do you give it to A1 for the next throw-in? No, because B1 did NOT commit a violation, just great defense.
In this case the ball would actually be awarded to B. :)

[Edited by One-Whistle on Feb 9th, 2004 at 01:42 AM]

This retaining the running of the end line priviledge was a recent rules change. (maybe three years ago) The rules committee did not intend for the right to run the end line to be retained if the defense committed an OOB violation (this is clear from the case book plays) only a kick, fist, breaking of the plane violation (or a foul), but unfortunately, they did not use precise wording in writing the changed rule, so it appears confusing. Your partner simply got trapped by the poor wording. TriggerMN is correct.

So knocking a ball out of bounds is just a simple violation (it <b>is</b> a violation - check the rules!), but intentionally kicking a ball out of bounds is a <b><i>super</b></i> violation???

I don't buy it. Besides, neither of the plays I sighted come anywhere close to saying the defender kicked the ball, just that it went OOB.

It's a fair play issue.
 

I think the NCAA rules handle this better because of the inclusion of the word "legally" when talking about the throw-in being touched in-bounds. The NFHS book does not say that the throw-in ends when it is legally touched, just touched in-bounds, so it includes kicks and fists. That is why the clock should start in NFHS on a kicked throw-in pass, but not in the NCAA. (Actually, this year the NCAA made when a throw-in ends very wacky due to the team control foul rule.)
The intent of the rule was to correct for teams attempting to deprive their opponents the priviledge of running the end line by committing some silly violation or foul during the throw-in. This allowed the defense to gain an advantage by doing something that is against the rules and that is not within the spirit of the rules according to the paragraph on page 10 near the start of the rules book.

Remember the intent was to correct for stuff that was done DURING the throw-in. 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. With a normal touch the subsequent OOB violation does not occur DURING the throw-in, so the right to run is lost. The defensive team has not attempted to take advantage of the rules to gain an unintended benefit. The bottom line here is to reward fair play, and not to reward unfair play.

[Edited by Nevadaref on Feb 9th, 2004 at 06:51 AM]

Be Careful
 

In the past, a coach may have told his team to either commit a violation or foul so the other team would lose their throw-in rights. The NF changed this a couple years ago so that a violation/foul by the defensive team would not cause the throw-in team to lose their rights to run the baseline.

But be careful on where the violation/foul occurs. As this will technically determine the throw-in spot. If the violation/foul occurs in the area where you would normally take the ball out on the baseline, then the team would still retain it's right to run. However, if the violation/foul occurs in an area where you would take the ball out on the side, it now becomes a spot throw-in.

Dan
Kicking the ball is a violation - it need not go OOB. So it causes the throw-in to end with an instant violation. Touching the ball is not a violation. If you touch the ball and deflect it forward and it goes out on the sidelines, you have a sideline throw-in not an endline throw-in. Therefore no running the endline.

Your initial post cites an example from a game, a case, and a rule. You thought there was an inconsistency between rule and case. By providing an example of a violation that ends the throw (the kick), as compared to a throw that ends followed by an immediate violation (touch, then OOB), people are simply illustrating how the rule and case are not in conflict. The case refers to the throw as not being covered by the rule, the rule allows for the kick situation so that teams can't cheat to eliminate the endline run.

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.

And by way of example, if B1 tips the throw-in and B2 then kicks the tipped ball A would not retain the right to run the endline. This is similar in effect to B1 tipping the ball OOB on the throw-in.

Re: Agreed
 

That's true? Wow. What if A1 doesn't catch the ball, but as B1 taps the ball back inbounds and it hits A1 and goes off him/her while he/she is out of bounds?

See, this is why I read this forum - for stuff like this so that when it comes up, I've got it covered. :)

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?) on a throwin and their opponents make a good defensive play and knock the throw-in out of bounds over the end line, that ends THAT throw-in and, on the subsequent throw-in, the original team cannot then run the baseline, correct?

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?

Great post, Chuck. :cool:

I suppose what I was missing is the fact that kicking the ball occured before the ball became live (tough for me to invision initially), hence the throw-in was never completed. Therefore, don't penelize the thrower-in.

I would vote, however, for a rewording of either the case play or the rule book. If I didn't have this forum as a resource, this situation would really have me puzzled.

JKL has it pat. For the last post, the ball IS live when it is placed at the disposal of the Thrower-in. I don't see the confusion if you understand hwen the ball is live and when the TI ends, remembering in the case of a foul or violation by B the succeding spot determines if A retains the right to run the line.

Re: Re: Agreed
 

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.

Re: Re: Agreed
 

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

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]

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.

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.)

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)..."

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.

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!

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

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.

To sum up
 

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

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.

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.

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.