Team A makes a FG. Team B secures the ball, runs OOB, throw inbounds, and A2 intercepts the pass. A2 then travels with the ball near the endline.would you let them run the end line? Rule states team A retains privilage if ensuing throw in is on the end line after a foul or violation.

No. The throw-in has been completed. The next throw-in will be a spot throw-in.

No. Once Team A gained possession, that no longer applies. It doesn't matter that the throw-in has been completed (see Rule 7-5-7)... what matters is that Team B lost possession of the ball to team A.

Z

[Edited by zebraman on Dec 9th, 2004 at 09:01 AM]

Nope, you got a spot!

zebraman,
I don't think possession is necessary. Only a legal touch that ends the throw-in. If B1 legally bats the ball out of bounds (as opposed to kicking or punching it), never gaining possession, it's a spot throw-in.

Rule 7-5-7 refers to a foul or violation during the throw-in. This is to prevent the defense from getting an advantage by committing a violation to prevent the offense from running the end line. Once the throw-in is completed, there is no longer an advantage for the defense in committing a violation.

Read the last sentence in 7-5-7 and see if you still feel that way.

The original post by Gmoore is confusing so let me reword it.

A1 scores. B1 has a "run-the-endline" throw-in. B2 catches the ball and is fouled immediately. The ensuing throw-in is on the baseline. Our state interpreter specifically told us that team B still has endline-run privileges. Similarly, if A1 batted the ball out-of-bounds and the throw-in is on the endline, team B retains endline-run privileges.

In Gmoore's post, team B would no longer get endline privileges because team A gained possession before team B's ensuring throw-in.

Z

We had a big debate on this last year, whether the legal touch by A1 ends the throw-in, and then B loses end-line privileges, or whether the violation of causing the ball to go out-of-bounds is part of the throw-in, thus giving B legal right to run the endline again.

I don't remember the outcome, except that different states are handling it differently, and NFHS hasn't ruled definitively one way or the other (what else is new!?)

My understanding of this has always been that the provision is in effect for violations or fouls during the throwin. The throwin ends when the ball is legally touched inbounds. I understand that your state interpreter may have said differently, but mine hasn't. :D
On my line, it's a spot throw-in until I get something more definitive. I just can't see how this provision can be extended beyond the throw-in.

In the originally posted play, you're clearly right. In some of the other posts, it gets murky.

Snaqwells,

I wish I could remember if our interpreter said that their interpretation came from NFHS or from our state office. Doesn't matter though if your interpreter says otherwise. Rule 7-5-7 is vague and doesn't specify if the endline privileges hold true even after the throw-in is completed. So for now (as you say), you'll call it your interpreter's way and I'll call it mine. If you and I end up reffing an interstate game, should we flip a coin for how we want to handle it? :D

Z

Um, I would think that casebook play 7.5.7SitB(c) would tell anybody how to handle this one. It's the exact same play and it's clear as can be. End of throw-in followed by a new spot throw-in. The NFHS ruled as definitively on this play as they possibly could.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 9th, 2004 at 02:22 PM]

Your state interpreter is wrong.

The rule is clear in that it says the common foul or violation by the opponent MUST be before the throw-in ends.

How much time can pass before the foul is no longer considered "immediately?" Without some definitve time frame, the dribbler could cribble for 9 seconds, get fouled, and still be able to run the end line.

His interp makes no sense.

Hey Z, was your intrepreter last year K.F. out of Seattle??? If so, she got it wrong...she presented it the same way down here, got called on it, and backed off...said she would get back to us on it, but our assignor ended up calling the head office guys and getting the word that it would be a spot throw-in in that situation...

Hey Z, was your intrepreter last year K.F. out of Seattle??? If so, she got it wrong...she presented it the same way down here, got called on it, and backed off...said she would get back to us on it, but our assignor ended up calling the head office guys and getting the word that it would be a spot throw-in in that situation... [/B][/QUOTE]

Yep, it was duo of K.F. and S.F. out of Seattle. They got called on it in our meeting too, but didn't back down. I'll shoot an e-mail to Stordahl and see what's up.

I hear you got a game coming up with smoref. You'll have fun.

Z