agree with NF rule change on throw-ins

[Mark Padgett]

According to the NF press release, the rule on throw-ins has been modified. Now, if a defensive team commits a personal foul or violation on a throw-in in which the inbounding team has the right to run the end line, the subsequent throw-in will not be a spot throw-in, but will continue to give the team the right to run the end line. Of course, this does not apply if the foul was technical, flagrant or intentional, or if the defensive team is in the penalty, since there would be a different penalty assessed for these.

When I first read the release, I wondered how a defensive team could violate on a throw-in. It is stated that intentionally kicking the inbound pass would be a violation.

I think this is a good change, since it eliminates the possibility of a team being rewarded for committing a foul or violation. It applies the same logic as if the defensive team commits a delay of game warning by reaching over the boundary, which is covered under the current rule.

Also, the release states there will now be a signal for a full timeout. Anyone hear what it will be? I heard it's sticking your tongue out at the coach or player who requests the timeout.

[BktBallRef]

Many people don't realize it but it's a violation to cause the ball to go OOB. So, if B1 deflects A1 inbound pass and causes it to go OOB, this is a violation. But, what if the ball is deflected OOB on the sideline, as opposed to the endline? Is this type of violation excluded?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Many people don't realize it but it's a violation to cause the ball to go OOB. So, if B1 deflects A1 inbound pass and causes it to go OOB, this is a violation. But, what if the ball is deflected OOB on the sideline, as opposed to the endline? Is this type of violation excluded?

Tony, does the new rule include OOB as well as kicking
violation? I guess maybe it's better to ask does the new
wording *exclude* OOB as a violation in this case
(apparently it does not). It doesn't make sense to me
that the defender should be penalized for legally knocking
away the inbounds pass. Hopefully there will be a case
play included for clarification.

BTW, has anyone ever actually seen B foul in order to
put the inbounder A on the spot instead of having the line
late in a game? Usually both coaches are surprised when
this happens.

[Brian Watson]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref
[B]

Originally posted by BktBallRef


BTW, has anyone ever actually seen B foul in order to
put the inbounder A on the spot instead of having the line
late in a game?

Yes, but not for this reason, it is usually to put them at theline with out time running off the clock.

I really don't know how often this will come up. Off the top of my head I cannot think of this occuring in my games very often. I think it is a good change, but it may just cause headaches from uninformed coaches.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Many people don't realize it but it's a violation to cause the ball to go OOB. So, if B1 deflects A1 inbound pass and causes it to go OOB, this is a violation. But, what if the ball is deflected OOB on the sideline, as opposed to the endline? Is this type of violation excluded?

If A1 inbounds and the ball deflects off B1 OOB, the throw-in ended when it touched B1 by rule, so the deflection OOB comes after the throw-in ends. This means there would be a spot throw-in. However, the act of kicking the ball is it's own violation, and the NF position is that the kicking violation occurs simultaneously with the throw-in ending and therefore is considered a violation that occurs during the throw-in. Sort of like the tie going to the runner. Therefore, the inbounding team would retain the right to run on a kicked ball.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

If A1 inbounds and the ball deflects off B1 OOB, the throw-in ended when it touched B1 by rule, so the deflection OOB comes after the throw-in ends. This means there would be a spot throw-in. However, the act of kicking the ball is it's own violation, and the NF position is that the kicking violation occurs simultaneously with the throw-in ending and therefore is considered a violation that occurs during the throw-in. Sort of like the tie going to the runner. Therefore, the inbounding team would retain the right to run on a kicked ball.

Mark, your explanation makes sense but it is not at all
consistent with how the fed handles illegaly catching
the jump ball by the jumper. If it was, the team getting
the ball for throw-in would not get the arrow. But, that's
an entirely different subject.

[Richard Ogg]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
BTW, has anyone ever actually seen B foul ....

I've seen this but from normal defense. I probably call 3-4 holds each year in this scenario. (Offensive player make good move to escape the defense, and the defense grabs jersey to avoid getting beat. Tweet!!)

As for the kick, they could fix this nicely if they redefined a throw-in to end when the ball legally touches another player. Since a kick is not a legal way of touching the ball, it would be natural to permit A1 to run the endline. (Same would apply to hitting it with a fist.)

[Mark Padgett]

Mark, your explanation makes sense but it is not at all consistent with how the fed handles illegaly catching
the jump ball by the jumper. If it was, the team getting
the ball for throw-in would not get the arrow. But, that's
an entirely different subject.

I'm not convinced that the "kicking during a throw-in" theory can be applied here at all. The rule is the way it is because of the theory that the violation (jumper catching the ball) carries it's own penalty (throw-in to other team). That is similar to the other situation, however, I would agree that the penalty seems excessive. If jumper A1 just taps the ball directly OOB, team B gets the throw-in but team A gets the arrow. The same goes if A1 taps the ball more than twice or team A violates any other way on the jump (other than A1 catching the ball, of course). It seems to me the penalty for any violation on the jump should be the same regardless of the type of violation. This is a case where the NCAA has a better rule.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

If A1 inbounds and the ball deflects off B1 OOB, the throw-in ended when it touched B1 by rule, so the deflection OOB comes after the throw-in ends. This means there would be a spot throw-in. However, the act of kicking the ball is it's own violation, and the NF position is that the kicking violation occurs simultaneously with the throw-in ending and therefore is considered a violation that occurs during the throw-in. Sort of like the tie going to the runner. Therefore, the inbounding team would retain the right to run on a kicked ball.

Makes sense. But, how about if the defender is standing on the sideline when he touches the ball. He violates as soon as he touches the ball, just as he would if he kicked the ball. Hmmm??

I'm just playing devil's advocate with the NF's semantics. I guess that's what Richard's doing too, with the 3 point throw that hits the floor. But if you look at the rule reagarding when the final score is approved, that rule is being re-written for the third time in four years. They just can't get it right!

I think we have to conclude that if a violation occurs that would normally keep the ball on the endline, then A1 is still entitled to run the endline.

[Mark Padgett]

Makes sense. But, how about if the defender is standing on the sideline when he touches the ball. He violates as soon as he touches the ball, just as he would if he kicked the ball. Hmmm??

We discussed this situation once before. In fact, we agreed that the clock could start on the touch, but then would have to stop because of the violation in this case, so there could actually be a second off the clock. In retrospect, I guess the clock start/stop could also be applied to a kick.

I think we have to conclude that if a violation occurs that would normally keep the ball on the endline, then A1 is still entitled to run the endline.

I would agree with this as a practical guideline to enforce the intent of the new rule. Can anyone think of an instance where this would not (or should not) apply? I'm talking about defensive violations, not about a foul which would result in free throws instead of a repeat throw-in.

Hey - how about a rule that says if team A was entitled to run the baseline and they violate, then team B gets to run the baseline on their throw-in?

Just kidding.

[Brian Watson]

Originally posted by Richard Ogg

I've seen this but from normal defense. I probably call 3-4 holds each year in this scenario. (Offensive player make good move to escape the defense, and the defense grabs jersey to avoid getting beat. Tweet!!)

As for the kick, they could fix this nicely if they redefined a throw-in to end when the ball legally touches another player. Since a kick is not a legal way of touching the ball, it would be natural to permit A1 to run the endline. (Same would apply to hitting it with a fist.)

Rich, you're only quoting half of the statement, you must be a reporter.

Have you ever seen it done on purpose? I think we all see fouls before the inbound play is complete; but have you ever seen a team do it on purpose to take away another teams right to run the baseline?

I for one, have not. This would also open up an ugly can o' intentional foul worms as well.

[Richard Ogg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brian Watson

Rich, you're only quoting half of the statement, you must be a reporter.

Have you ever seen it done on purpose? ....

Sorry -- didn't intend to misrepresent. I chopped the quote only to save space.

No, I've never seen a foul just to stop the running the endline. Nor can I imagine anyone doing it.