Ok, so A1 scores. B1 has the ball OOB and runs the baseline. He inbounds the ball but team B has trouble bringing the ball upcourt against A's press. Just as the official's count gets to 9, B2 throws the ball off A3's leg and the ball goes OOB across the endline.

According to your friend, B1 can still run the endline on this throw-in? Not a chance.

Chuck

Here's my 2 pennys...the above foul does not create a situation where you would have Team B able to "run" the baseline.

The only time Team B could run the baseline after a foul...is if the foul happened DURING THE THROW IN...not after, as your exapmle shows.

You seem to write quite eloquently, but your interpretation of the rule leaves a little to be desired...IMHO.

RD

1) If your "friend" wants to discuss this, he should come here.

2) He needs to read the word "retains" and the definition of that word.

3) You can't read one sentence of 8-5-7 and decide on the rule -- he's the one taking things out of context.

[/QUOTE]
1) If your "friend" wants to discuss this, he should come here.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I expected such a respone. But please don't shoot the messenger. Not everyone is computer savvy or computer comfortable. I found his arguments interesting -- and worth posting.

Bob,rule should be 7-5-7 instead of 8-5-7?

The simplest clarification is to go back to the 2001/2002 rulebook,which is when the rule came out. The language at the front states that this rule change "permits a team to run the end line on a throw-in when the scoring team,immediately following a made basket or DURING the ensuing throw-in,commits a violation or a foul". Note that it doesn't say AFTER the throw-in is over,it says "during"!The "Comments on Rules Revisions" at the back of this book tell you exactly the same thing.

When in doubt,always check the casebook.In this case,the play is covered well--CB7.5.7SitA,B,C,D,E&F.Your friend should have checked these cases out,Bay State, before he decided that the rule said more than it actually did.

This is my first attempt to get on line.

I am the official calling into question the rulew regarding the right to retaian the running of the base line.

The best explanation I have heard was the official who refered to last years rule book which had the rules change in there. I unfortunately misplaced last years book. I understand the intent of the rule however the rule as it is written this year does not mention the word "during" the throw-in.

It simply states you retain the right if the ensuing throw in is on the end line. The written rule is quite clear.

I further agree that the official who sited the example of a player being trapped to a 9 count then throwing off the opponents leg should not have the right to run the baseline. However as the rule is written this year it does state he has the right.

What about the player covering the inbounds passer and denies the throw in. Should they be penalized for good defense?

I think the writing of this rule needs to be much clearer. If the intent is what everyone seems to believe then adding the word "during" the throw in would go along way.

Welcome to the board! Glad you joined us.

This is a great post, b/c I went back to check the wording of the rule since you made an issue of it. Here's the wording from 7-5-7 as it appeared in last year's NF rulebook for the first time:

And here's the same passage from this year's rulebook:

Very interesting! At the very least, the need to return to the original wording. I think that's a great catch by our new friend. The intent is clearly the same, I think, but the removal of the phrase "on the ensuing throw-in" creates ambiguity.

By the way, the NCAA rulebook is quite clear on this issue (7-5-6).

Chuck

Welcome.

I'm doing this w/o the rule book, so some of the references may be wrong (of course, I typed the wrong reference with the rule book yesterday, so ...)

7-5 indicates where throw-ins will take place. To apply this rule, you determine what happened, then look at the appropriate section of 7-5 to determine what type of throw-in applies.

7-5-7 indicates that the throw-in is "along the end line" for any throw-in that occurs after / as a result of a made or awarded basket. It then goes on to state that the team "retains that right" for (some) subsequent throw-ins. IOW, you're only applying this second sentence if the first sentence applies -- the throw-in is immediately after a made or awarded basket.

Once the throw-in is complete, the first sentence doesn't apply, so the second won't be applied. You'll now use other sections of 7-5 to determine the throw-in spot.

NFHS Basketball Rule Changes — 2001-02

By Jim Dixon
May 3, 2001


Change in the Throw-in Procedure
As all basketball referees know, violations or fouls on a throw-in require that the ball be put back in play with a spot throw-in by the other team. Normally this works without penalizing either team, but what if a team (Team B) has just scored and B2 - now on defense - violates the boundary plane (R 9-2-11), or kicks the ball (R 9-4), or fouls A2 on the throw-in? NFHS Rules 7-4-6 and 7-5-2 required a spot throw-in from out-of-bounds (OOB).
The new change will incorporate verbiage that will allow a team to run the end line (no spot throw-in) when a violation or foul is committed by the scoring team immediately following a made basket. The change will be similar to the NCAA rules (7-5.5, A.R. 9, and 7-5.6, A.R. 10). Supposedly, R 7-5-2 and R 7-5-5 will also change.

Again ther seems to be alot of discussions regarding the fact that when a throw in is touched by a player on the court the throw in ends. Agreed, it does end. But that is not what the rule is saying. It is saying if there's a violation or foul and the ENSUING throw in is still at the base line you retain the right to run. If you take the rule verbatum, ( as it is written) ending the throw in has no credence if the next (ensuing) throw in is still on the base line.

Also, regarding the fact that " causing the ball to go out of bounds" is a violation. As it is written, the ball going out of bounds and touching out of bounds is not the violation. " Causing" it to is.

Under the rules Chapter 4 section 45 defines violations as those listed in 9-1 through 9-13.

9-3 states" A player shall not cause the ball to go out of bounds." It goes on to state the penalty when the violation occurs.

Ok, I've already posted this, but maybe I wasn't clear about it. If you go to the rule itself, our new friend is exactly right. The rule says that after a score, if the scoring team commits a foul or violation that requires a new throw-in from the endline, the inbounding team retains the right to run the endline.

That's exactly how it's written. We all know that's NOT what it means. But that's what it SAYS. He's exactly right on this.

You can go back to last year's book to show us what it means, or what is intended; but the rule as stated allows a throw-in from anywhere along the baseline in those circumstances. It does not limit "retaining the privilege" to a violation or foul that is committed during the throw-in.

The rule committee needs to make sure that the "during the ensuing throw-in" is put back into 7-5-7 next year. I think "mgelb" has a very valid point. Am I going to call it that way? No way, b/c I know what was intended. But that really is how it's written.

By the way, mgelb, I'm near Springfield, MA. Where's Norwood?

Chuck

We need to get this guy on the committee!!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mgelb

What about the player covering the inbounds passer and denies the throw in. Should they be penalized for good defense?


Unless I'm missing something here, you ARE penalizing them if, after their good defensive pressure, you then give the offense the continued priviledge of running the endline.

BTW, welcome to the board! (I'm just a couple of towns away from you; hope to work together sometime)

mdray, I agree and mentioned it in my earlier email. A defensive player shouldn't be penalized. However the rule reads as it reads. The interpretation by almost all contradicts the way it is written. My suggestion is simply to add the word " during" the throw in. It would certainly clarify it, don't you think?

yes I agree with clarifying the wording; I was just trying to comment on your point about not penalizing good defense -- your interpretation was that if the defense knocks the throw-in pass OOB,the other team can still run the endline. Isn't that penalizing good defense?? - by *letting* the other team still run the endline. The "reward" for that good defense is the forcing of a spot throw, i.e. - they are not now being penalized when the thrower-in has to stay put.