Can the endline still be run?

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

While I agree with your logic that no team should benefit from a double foul, I disagree completely with your opinion that B is definitive. The rule does not mention what type of free throw that play is resumed on. That's exactly what we've been arguing about for 3 pages.

Nor does it state what type of THROW-IN shall be used when we resume.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
[/B]

While I agree with your logic that no team should benefit from a double foul, I disagree completely with your opinion that B is definitive. The rule does not mention what type of free throw that play is resumed on. That's exactly what we've been arguing about for 3 pages. [/B][/QUOTE]

Nor does it state what type of THROW-IN shall be used when we resume. [/B][/QUOTE]Edited. Give me a freaking break, willya? It's 4am and I just got up to let the damn dogs out.

[Texas Aggie]

Nevada: in Play 1, there's no POI designation. In Play 2, the POI designation isn't applicable based on what happened.

In the play referenced, POI is applicable, thus the difference. Again, there's no rules support that I'm aware of that committing a foul overrides POI. And based upon the reference I gave, its clear the committee feels POI means just that: at the point of interruption.

JR: I don't understand what you mean by you don't agree that B applies. Which POI reference applies?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Texas Aggie
JR: I don't understand what you mean by you don't agree that B applies. Which POI reference applies?

The argument is that rule 7-5-7 applies and that the team doesn't retain their right to run because a double foul isn't a common foul.

That's why no POI isn't applicable- because R7-5-9 which you are relying on isn't applicable.

We've put in 4 pages arguing this so far. You answer is not a definitive answer.

Of course, you could say the same thing about mine....ergo 4 pages.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Texas Aggie
Nevada: in Play 1, there's no POI designation.

I never said that there was. I quoted the interp because we have also been talking about the NFHS going by a rationale that a team should not lose an advantage when the opponent does something wrong. I believe that it is utter nonsense that a team keeps the right to run when they are offended by a common foul, but loses it when they suffer the greater offense of an intentional or a flagrant foul. Who cares that 2FTs intervene? This was really a poor rule change.

Originally posted by Texas Aggie
In Play 2, the POI designation isn't applicable based on what happened.

I quoted this interp not because of what does happen in the play itself, but because of the comment to the ruling for part (c).
There is no question that POI applies when there is a double foul while a try for goal is in the air. The comment that I even put in bold directly says that for you.

Here's that quote again, "Had the try been successful, the point of interruption would have been a throw-in for Team B from anywhere along the end line."

So in this play we have POI being used for a noncommon foul and on the ensuing throw-in the team retains the running privilege. That exactly counters 7-5-7, which states that the team only retains this right following common fouls.

So my point in citing these two interps is that there is evidence both ways. The NFHS needs to fix this and make a definitive ruling.

[Kajun Ref N Texas]

That exactly counters 7-5-7, which states that the team only retains this right following common fouls.


Nevada,

With all due respect you keep putting the word "only" into 7-5-7 and it does not appear in the rule.

7-5-7 (in part) reads:

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

The word "only" is not found in that rule.

Double fouls are simply not addressed in rule 7-5-7, as such we follow the POI rules of double fouls.

Intentional and flagrant fouls can be differentiated because they involve free throws and NO provision of POI.

In general, in this forum, I think we hold so tightly to the letter of the law (rules) that we sometimes forget to look at the spirit of the law when applying rules to situations.

[Lotto]

When the NCAA added the "retains the right to run the endline" rule a couple of years ago, they left out any reference to intentional and flagrant personal fouls. They dealt with that explicitly the following year. (See NCAA Rule 7-5.7.)

For double personal fouls, the NCAA doesn't use PoI, but explicitly says to give the ball back to the team in control at the designated spot nearest where the fouls occur. Since there's team control in NCAA during a throw-in, that's clear.

In the case of technical fouls, NCAA uses PoI. However, there is an Approved Ruling:

A.R. 13. The coach from Team Ais assessed a direct technical foul (b) during a throw-in;
RULING: Aplayer from Team B shall attempt the two free throws for the direct technical foul. In (b), the ball shall be put back into play at a designated spot for a throw-in, which, in this case, is the spot of the original throw-in.

That's pretty clear, too---the right to run the endline is lost.

Perhaps the NFHS will follow along these lines in the next year or two.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Kajun Ref N Texas
That exactly counters 7-5-7, which states that the team only retains this right following common fouls.

That's my point. One interp supports 7-5-7 and the other contradicts it.

Originally posted by Kajun Ref N Texas


Nevada,

With all due respect you keep putting the word "only" into 7-5-7 and it does not appear in the rule.

7-5-7 (in part) reads:

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

The word "only" is not found in that rule.

Double fouls are simply not addressed in rule 7-5-7, as such we follow the POI rules of double fouls.

Intentional and flagrant fouls can be differentiated because they involve free throws and NO provision of POI.

In general, in this forum, I think we hold so tightly to the letter of the law (rules) that we sometimes forget to look at the spirit of the law when applying rules to situations.

I don't know how long you have been officiating HS basketball, but this has to do with the history of this rule over the past few years. So in order to properly respond to your post, I need to cover the evolution of this rule.

Back in 2001-02 7-5-7 was first changed to permit a team to retain the running privilege. The rule was worded differently in its first form. It said, "A team retains this privilege if the scoring team commits a violation or foul (before the bonus is in effect) on the ensuing throw-in if the resulting throw-in spot would be on the endline."

Notice the phrase "on the ensuing throw-in."

While this original version made it clear that the foul or violation had to occur on the throw-in, it failed to account for the scoring team fouling or violating prior to that throw-in. Therefore, the NFHS made another change the very next season.

So, in 2002-03 the rule became "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 be on the endline."

Now this wording covered offenses prior to and during the throw-in. Unfortunately, since it didn't specify a time frame, some people interpreted the rule to mean that a team could still run even when being fouled near the end line AFTER completing the throw-in. That is not the correct understanding.

Finally in 2004-05 the word "common" was added to describe the type of foul, giving us our current wording.

At the front of the rules book that season under the heading, "2004-05 Major Editorial Changes" there appeared, "7-5-7 Clarified that a team will retain end-line run privileges after a violation or common foul."

So why would the NFHS need to issue a clarification which added the word "common" unless they intended to except other types of fouls? That is why I wrote only common fouls. That is obviously the purpose of the NFHS clarification.

Also, that interp which I labelled play 1 in an earlier post in this thread was issued that same season by the NFHS.

[Nevadaref]

Furthermore, situation #6 from the 2004-05 interps actually became case book play 7.5.7 situation D that same season replacing the previous ruling which was:

7.5.7 SITUATION 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 be permitted to run the end line on the ensuing throw-in. (7-5-11)


Could it be any clearer that the NFHS purposely chose to take away the running privilege on noncommon fouls?

[CA BBall Ref]

If the concensous is that they loose the privlidge to run the baseline after a double foul how come we do not reset the shot clock after a double foul. If it is P.O.I. it is exactly that. They should be able to run.

[Nevadaref]

Because this is NFHS basketball and there is no shot clock! At least there is not one provided for in the NFHS rules.

You folks in CA and a handful of other states such as MA who do use it are in the vast minority.

[Kajun Ref N Texas]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Furthermore, situation #6 from the 2004-05 interps actually became case book play 7.5.7 situation D that same season replacing the previous ruling which was:

7.5.7 SITUATION 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 be permitted to run the end line on the ensuing throw-in. (7-5-11)


Could it be any clearer that the NFHS purposely chose to take away the running privilege on noncommon fouls?

Nevada,

Wow. Two excellent, well thought out and communicated posts. You have obviously put some time and effort into this subject. I respect your opinion.

I do have somewhat of a rebuttal, though, regarding the history of the rule. The issue of Double Fouls did not apply to this situation in the past because on Double Fouls we used AP. So the throw-in was a spot throw-in by the AP team. No need to include Double Fouls in 7.5.7; it simply didn't apply

Now that we are using POI for Double Fouls, it is clear to me what that POI is in this situation, and that is running the baseline on the throw-in. I beleive NFHS will modify 7.5.7 next year to catch what they didn't clarify this year.

Thanks for your historical input. I love this forum.