Is this new (posted 10/1/04) NFHS Interpretation just wrong or did the rule change?

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)

I don't have the new book yet, but the 03-04 Case Book 7.5.7 Situation D says, "Team B will be permitted to run the end line on the ensuing throw-in."

The interpretation is correct. It's not a rule change either- just a clarification of the existing rule- NFHS 7-5-7. The clarification said that the team will retain the privilege of running the end line after a violation or <font color = red>common</font> foul. As you know, intentional or flagrant fouls are not common fouls, by definition also.

Why is it limited to common fouls? What's the rationale? You're penalizing the throw-in team by taking away the ability to run the endline. That doesn't make much sense to me.

I think that the rationale is that, if you don't have FT's, and if you then re-set at the end line, the team throwing the ball in now hasn't lost an advantage that they originally had- i.e.-the advantage of running the end line. If there are FT's taken that do let the shooting team retain possession afterwards, then the team that is throwing the ball in after the FT's are over never did have the option or advantage of running the end line- therefore they can't lose an advantage that they never had. They would actually gain an advantage if you let them run the end line.

That's weak. LOL! :D

BTW, last year's book does not say common foul.

7-5-7
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.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Oct 11th, 2004 at 12:48 PM]

That's why it's listed in the beginning of the book as a "Major Editorial Change"

That was my point. It's been changed since last year.

Still makes no sense.

As for NCAA, I believe they changed the rule last year or the year before (or clarified it) so that ANY foul by the defense on a throw-in after a basket did not take away the throwing team's ability to run the endline - the rationale being what was mentioned earlier - not to penalize the offended team.

headed in the wrong direction
 

Chuck,
I completely agree with you. The spirit and intent of the rules definitely includes the concept that a team should never derive ANY benefit from infringing the rules.
This is why I noticed this when reading the new interps.

Also, I had a play in a HS game this summer that made me think along this line.
With two seconds remaining, White trails by 3, but has the ball for a throw-in under their own basket at the intersection of the end line and the lane line.
The player for Blue defending the inbounder breaks the OOB plane and hits the ball while it is still in the thrower's hands. My partner, a former D-I official, calls the T. After the two shots (1 of 2 was successful), he asks me where I want to take the ball out. Without even thinking about it, I said half court.
White inbounded and missed a 35-footer as time expired.
Over a post-game refreshment my partner made the point that the requirement to move the ball to the division line after a T in NFHS penalizes the offended team in a situation like that. IMO he is right. While Blue did not purposely take the T in our game, it seems that it might be a smart strategy. Take the T and give 2 shots as the price for moving your opponents back 42 feet. This certainly makes it more difficult for the offensive team to score on the ensuing possession.
I thought then that the NFHS needed to look at changing that rule. They need to make it so that the offended team doesn't lose a frontcourt inbounds spot. Going to the division line is fine, if the lost throw-in would have been in the backcourt.
Now I see the NFHS moving even further in the wrong direction IMHO by adding the word "common" to 7-5-7.

PS I won't get my new books until this Sunday. Could someone who already has them please post 7.5.7 Sit D from the 04-05 Case Book. I'm curious if the NFHS remembered to change the last sentence now that the word "common" has been added to the rule.

[Edited by Nevadaref on Oct 12th, 2004 at 07:01 AM]

Re: headed in the wrong direction
 

The case is listed as "changed" and lists a spot throw in for teh I or F foul.

Got my books last night...
 

Rule 7-5-7
...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 line. A team retains this privilege if the scoring team commits a violation or COMMON foul(before the bonus is in effect) and the ensuing throw-in spot would have been on the end line...

Case Play 7.5.7 D
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. (7-5-11)

NOT CORRECTED to our understanding of maintaining end-line freedom.

Rule 7-5-11
...After an intentional personal foul, as in 4-19-3, or flagrant personal foul, as in 4-19-4, any player of the team to whom the free throws have been awarded shall make the THROW-IN FROM THE OUT-OF-BOUNDS SPOT NEAREST THE FOUL.

So even though we don't like the case play/designated spot throw-in, it is supported by 7-5-11.:(

Re: Got my books last night...
 

I think this is entirely equitable and consistent. If the immediate action is to be a throw-in, they should retain the right to run. If there are FTs involved, it's no longer applicable.

My two cents...

All they did in this is say that a T or intentional carry its own penalty which is the reawarding of the ball at a spot out of bounds.

Previously if you read them strictly then a T after a shot would be taken back to have a throw-in and run the baseline. That is incosistent with the T penalty. The same applies for intentional fouls.

They are just ceaning up an inconsistentcy.

Following the FTs for a T you ALWAYS went to the division line designated spot throw-in. Running the end line was never an issue after a T. The rule change this season is only for flagrant or intentional fouls.
Thanks for posting the new 7-5-7 and 7.5.7SitD. I'm glad that the NFHS was at least thorough and made the case book plays agree with the new "clarification," which like last season's 4-23 is really a rule change. Why don't they just admit it and call it a CHANGE?

However, your citation of 7-5-11 in order to support this new interp is erroneous. The old 7-5-11 is a general case talking about flagrants or intentionals that happen during the normal course of play, not specifically during a throw-in when a team has the running priviledge. 7-5-7 dealt with that specific situation.
What you have done is akin to citing 7-5-5 and saying that this rule would support a designated-spot throw-in after a common foul during a throw-in. This rule simply doesn't apply in this case because 7-5-7 is more specific and overrides it.