NF question - running the baseline

[Adam]

This depends. Was the kick the first touch in bounds? If so, they got it wrong. It doesn't matter if it touches the floor or not, only whether the kick is the first player-touch of the ball (and where the throwin is after).

If the ball was tipped by another player before being kicked, the officials got it right.

Either way, they should have told the player whether it was a spot throwin or an end line throwin.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This depends. Was the kick the first touch in bounds? If so, they got it wrong. It doesn't matter if it touches the floor or not, only whether the kick is the first player-touch of the ball (and where the throwin is after).

If the ball was tipped by another player before being kicked, the officials got it right.

Either way, they should have told the player whether it was a spot throwin or an end line throwin.

VERY good advice. In fact, I've had a blunder or two in my career so now I tell *every* thrower-in what type of throw-in it is (spot or endline (with sweep of arm)) if the throw-in is on their BC endline.

It's especially important after an unusual delay, such as a timeout, injury, etc.

[26 Year Gap]

Think of it this way. [Assuming the kick was the first touch on the inbound] Wouldn't it be penalizing the team inbounding to have the abillity to run the end line taken away for a violation by the opponent?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Think of it this way. [Assuming the kick was the first touch on the inbound] Wouldn't it be penalizing the team inbounding to have the abillity to run the end line taken away for a violation by the opponent?

Exactly.

One team should never be able to do something illegal and benefit from that specific action. A team can benefit by either advantaging their position, or de-advantaging their opponent's position.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Think of it this way. [Assuming the kick was the first touch on the inbound] Wouldn't it be penalizing the team inbounding to have the abillity to run the end line taken away for a violation by the opponent?

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Exactly.

One team should never be able to do something illegal and benefit from that specific action. A team can benefit by either advantaging their position, or de-advantaging their opponent's position.

True, but before someone smartly pointed out this fact to the NFHS committee that's exactly what the ruling was.

1999-2000 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 20: Team A scores a field goal and B1 is taking the ball out of bounds, running the end line. When B1 inbounds, A1 intentionally kicks the ball. RULING: On the ensuing throw-in, B1 will have a designated spot throw-in. (7-5-2)

2000-01 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 14: After a made basket by Team B, A1 has the run of the end line for a throw-in. A1’s throw-in is intentionally kicked by B1. Is Team A awarded a designated spot throw-in or may it again run the end line for the throw-in? RULING: There is no provision to allow Team A to run the end line. After any violation, the ball shall be put in play from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. No exception to this rule is noted. (7-5-2)

[mutantducky]

found a news story about it--- glad to read this topic. interesting situation. I wonder if the ref told the player he could move.



NorCal boys basketball: St. Joe's furious comeback beats Branson - Marin Independent Journal

Joe's (25-8) scored 23 points in the last three minutes to shock the Bulls (30-5),


"After Whitfield (12 points) made a pair of free throws to make it 40-39 Branson with 20.6 seconds on the clock, Gabe Avins tried to inbound the ball for the Bulls, but it was kicked by D'Angelo Hutton. Then Avins took two steps to his right before calling a timeout. The referees originally granted the timeout, but then huddled and gave St. Joe's the ball, ruling that Avins couldn't run after the reset. However, according to the California Interscholastic Federation rulebook, Avins should have been able to roam the baseline, even after a reset."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

found a news story about it--- glad to read this topic. interesting situation. I wonder if the ref told the player he could move.



NorCal boys basketball: St. Joe's furious comeback beats Branson - Marin Independent Journal

Joe's (25-8) scored 23 points in the last three minutes to shock the Bulls (30-5),


"After Whitfield (12 points) made a pair of free throws to make it 40-39 Branson with 20.6 seconds on the clock, Gabe Avins tried to inbound the ball for the Bulls, but it was kicked by D'Angelo Hutton. Then Avins took two steps to his right before calling a timeout. The referees originally granted the timeout, but then huddled and gave St. Joe's the ball, ruling that Avins couldn't run after the reset. However, according to the California Interscholastic Federation rulebook, Avins should have been able to roam the baseline, even after a reset."

Again, this assumes the throwin pass was not legally touched (tipped) prior to the kick. Without video, I have no idea if this was the case.

I feel like I'm channeling my inner Rut now.