NF question - running the baseline

[That Don Guy]

This was from a Northern California championship game (involving the HS Jason Kidd went to - they came back from something like 18 points down with 3 minutes left in the game (yes, that's 18 points in the last three minutes) to win at the buzzer).

B1 makes a basket.
A1 throws the ball inbounds, but B2 kicks it, and the officials call a violation.
A1, on the subsequent throw-in, attempts to run the baseline, but is told that this is a violation, and the ball is turned over to Team B.
Is this the correct call?
What if the first throw-in touches the floor (but not a player or an official) before being kicked?

(I know in NCAA, Team A is allowed to run the baseline again - but is the rule the same in NF?)

[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.

[grunewar]

Below is a case play similar to yours. I believe we are to "infer" the same in your case, since the running the endline throw-in from Team A did not legally end due to the kick by Team B, Team A should maintain those privileges until the throw-in legally ends.

*4.42.5 SITUATION: Team A is awarded an alternating-possession throw-in. A1’s throw-in pass is illegally kicked by B2. RULING: As a result of B2’s kicking violation, Team A is awarded a new throw-in at the designated spot nearest to where the kicking violation (illegal touching) occurred. Since the throw-in was not contacted legally, the throw-in had not ended. The arrow remains with Team A for the next alternating-possession throw-in. (6-4-4)

[Raymond]

To save Nevada the aggravation the correct title of this thread should be NF question - running the endline.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

To save Nevada the aggravation the correct title of this thread should be NF question - running the endline.

Good catch!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

To save Nevada the aggravation the correct title of this thread should be NF question - running the endline.

Thanks. Now that the terminology is correct, I can respond in this thread.


7.5.7 SITUATION B: Team A scores a field goal. B1 picks up the ball after the
made basket, then proceeds out of bounds to start the throw-in process. B1 runs
along the end line out of bounds while attempting to find an open teammate for
the throw-in. Immediately after B1 releases the throw-in pass, (a) the ball is
kicked by A2 near the end line; (b) the ball is kicked by A2 near the division line;
or (c) the ball is deflected out of bounds across the end line off of A2. RULING:
In (a) and (b), A2 has violated by kicking the ball. In (a), Team B will be awarded
a throw-in and retain the right to run the end line on the ensuing throw-in. In (b),
Team B will put the ball in play at a designated spot nearest the violation, which
is the division line. In (c), A2 legally contacted the ball and subsequently hit it out
of bounds, ending the throw-in. Team B is awarded a designated spot throw-in on
the end line.

[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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Not to worry: you stated something clearly and didn't immediately retract or qualify it.