Out of bounds

[BMA]

B-2 to is making a throw-in, after a score. Team-A puts on a press, A-2 intentional kicks the ball OOB, B-2 who is still OOB catches the ball.
Question: is the intentional kick called which keeps the ball with Team-B, or Team-A's ball because B-2 caught the ball still OOB.

My call: kick ball on A-2

If thats wrong I should be a soccer player because I kick that one.

[ChuckElias]

This has to be a kicking violation. Once the ball is intentionally kicked, it becomes dead. So the touching OOB is irrelevant. Give the ball back to Team B for a throw-in.

If the throw-in will be made along the endline, then I think that B can still run the endline. Doesn't this fall under the new rule? (I haven't received my new book yet)

Chuck

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

The Team B's throw-in ended when A2 touched the ball (in this case intentionally kicking it). When A2 intentionally kicked the ball, A2 committed a violation. The penalty for A2's violation is that Team B gets the ball for a designated spot throw-in at the boundary line closest to the spot of A2's violation.

The new rule about running the endline is applicable only if the foul or violation occured before the throw-in ended.

[rockyroad]

Mr. DeNucci is wrong...the new rule says they may still run the baseline...case book 7.5.7 Situation A on pg 4 addresses this particular situation...

DJ

[BktBallRef]

DJ is correct. The violation by A2 caused the throw-in to end. Therefore, B will still be able to run the endline. That's the whole reason for the change. After score by A, if A commits a foul or a violation on the ensuing throw-in, B retains the right to run the end line.

Basically, if the touching by A is a violation, then allow B to run the baseline. It would be no different if A2 stepped on the endline and touched the ball after B1 released it. A2's touch caused the violation and the end of the throw-in. B's ball, with privileges still in place.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The new rule about running the endline is applicable only if the foul or violation occured before the throw-in ended.

Mark, I see the logic of this answer. But since the new rule applies (I think) to both violations and fouls, what other violation could the defense commit that would still allow the inbounding team to run the endline? The only thing I can think of is reaching through the throw-in plane. Is this the only violation situation that is envisioned by this rule change?

Chuck

[Edited by ChuckElias on Oct 23rd, 2001 at 02:32 PM]

[ScottParks]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Mark, I see the logic of this answer. But since the new rule applies (I think) to both violations and fouls, what other violation could the defense commit that would still allow the inbounding team to run the endline? The only thing I can violation situation that is envisioned by this rule change?

Chuck

Off the top of my head,I can think of at least one violaton... defense reaching over the end line.

[RecRef]

Originally posted by parkssa

Mark, I see the logic of this answer. But since the new rule applies (I think) to both violations and fouls, what other violation could the defense commit that would still allow the inbounding team to run the endline? The only thing I can violation situation that is envisioned by this rule change?

Chuck [/B]

Off the top of my head,I can think of at least one violaton... defense reaching over the end line. [/B][/QUOTE]


Now I am confused. The first time, it is a team warning, so inbounder could still run the baseline. The second time it is a T and that is something different.

[Danvrapp]

Originally posted by RecRef

Off the top of my head,I can think of at least one violaton... defense reaching over the end line.

Now I am confused. The first time, it is a team warning, so inbounder could still run the baseline. The second time it is a T and that is something different.[/QUOTE]

Right. First time - violation--and a warning--but team A can still run the line

Second time, all all times thereafter - violation--and a technical--and team A gets the ball for a spot throw in at the division line.

[BktBallRef]

What RecRef is saying that with an initial violation of the throw-in plane, the rule was already in plac to allow the the thrower to run the endline. The rule change covers other violations by the defense, such as those that I identified above.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by rockyroad
Mr. DeNucci is wrong...the new rule says they may still run the baseline...case book 7.5.7 Situation A on pg 4 addresses this particular situation...

DJ

I am ashamed that I had forgotten about that new case book play. I understand the logic in the ruling, but it leaves my wondering why it is in direct conflict with the logic that the NFHS uses when one of the jumpers catches the ball before a jump ball ends.

If A1 (one of the two jumpers) takes player control of the ball before the jump ball ends, the NFHS ruling is that Team A has gained control for AP purposes and the AP arrow is set toward Team B's basket, and by A1 gaining player control in violation of the jump ball rule, Team B gets a throw-in nearest the spot of the violation by A1. I hope everybody can see where I am going with this.

In the case book play, Team B's throw-in ended when A1 touched the ball with his/her foot, A1 committed a floor violation by illegally kicking the ball. See how this logic is in line with the NFHS's jump ball violation above.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I am ashamed that I had forgotten about that new case book play. I understand the logic in the ruling, but it leaves my wondering why it is in direct conflict with the logic that the NFHS uses when one of the jumpers catches the ball before a jump ball ends.

Great call. NF should bring that interpretation into line with the NCAA interp.

Chuck

[Dan_ref]

Just to continue kicking this one to death, if the throw
in had been off an alternating possesion situation then
the arrow gets changed when the kicking violation
occurs. Agree?

[RecRef]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Snip

For example - there still is no definitive rule or case that clears up, without any room for challenge, whether or not the restrictions on a defender reaching over the line on a throw-in end when the ball is released toward the court by the inbounder or whether the defender must wait until the ball crosses the line. We have been discussing this for years and the rules committee still has not clarified this, except for interpretations from recognized interpreters and a former member of the NF rules committee. However, there is no agreement even among them. This is a fairly simple case in which to clarify a rule. [/B]

Maybe this should be in a new thread but I can think of how the rule could be any plainer in its meaning.

7-6-3 The opponent(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw-in plane until the ball has been released on a throw-in pass.

This is repeated in 9-2-11, which covers the penalty phase.

[ChuckElias]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RecRef

Maybe this should be in a new thread but I can think of how the rule could be any plainer in its meaning.

7-6-3 The opponent(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw-in plane until the ball has been released on a throw-in pass.

The rule you've quoted says it's ok for the defender to break the plane once the ball is released. It doesn't say that he may contact the ball, however. The provision above could simply be a recognition that the momentum of the player could carry him beyond the boundary.

On the other hand, 10-3-12 states that a player is charged with a technical foul if he should "reach through the throw-in boundary-line plane and touch. . .the ball". No mention is made of whether the touching occurs before or after the "thrower" has released the ball for the throw-in. It seems like it's saying that the defender my not touch the ball by reaching through the boundary-plane, period.

Now, that may not be a correct interpretation, but I think I've shown that it can reasonably be read a different way. So I agree with the point that it should be clarified.

Chuck