Running baseline after violation

[Camron Rust]

I assert that the wording is correct. It says that the team "retains" the priviledge. You can only retain something that you have. The right to run the endline only applies to the throwin. Once the throwin ends, that priviledge ends. If a subsquent foul or violation occurs, that priviledge has already expired...can retain something that was previously lost.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
I assert that the wording is correct. It says that the team "retains" the priviledge. You can only retain something that you have. The right to run the endline only applies to the throwin. Once the throwin ends, that priviledge ends. If a subsquent foul or violation occurs, that priviledge has already expired...can retain something that was previously lost.

Exactly my point, but better said.

If you read it the way others seem to be reading it, every end line throw in after the first basket by each team would allow the end-line to be run, and that's clearly not true.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
If you read it the way others seem to be reading it, every end line throw in after the first basket by each team would allow the end-line to be run, and that's clearly not true.

I don't think so, Bob, b/c even the badly worded rule from this year's book says that they retain the privilege only on the "ensuing" throw-in. So it doesn't apply to every throw-in after the first basket. It only applies to the throw-in that comes immediately after the throw-in which customarily follows the score. That's not the clearest sentence I ever wrote, but I hope you get the drift.

Chuck

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

I don't think so, Bob, b/c even the badly worded rule from this year's book says that they retain the privilege only on the "ensuing" throw-in. So it doesn't apply to every throw-in after the first basket. It only applies to the throw-in that comes immediately after the throw-in which customarily follows the score. That's not the clearest sentence I ever wrote, but I hope you get the drift.

Chuck

Ensue -- to follow as a result or consequence.

Thus, "ensuing throw-in" is the throw in that's a result of a violation or foul. And, if that throw in is on the end-line, well, ...

[mgelb]

To the officials who claim that once the throw-in ends you no longer "retain" the right to run the baseline. How do you explain that the rule says " if the ensuing ( next ) throw-in is at the end line you do retain the right to run.

What does that mean? What right are they talking about?

I can understand that if the violation or foul ocurrs DURING the throw-in but the rule doesn't state that.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by mgelb
To the officials who claim that once the throw-in ends you no longer "retain" the right to run the baseline. How do you explain that the rule says " if the ensuing ( next ) throw-in is at the end line you do retain the right to run.

What does that mean? What right are they talking about?

I can understand that if the violation or foul ocurrs DURING the throw-in but the rule doesn't state that.

Sigh ...

Once the throw-0in ends, a team doesn't have the right to run the end-line. You can't retain what you don't have.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
[/B]

Once the throw-in ends, a team doesn't have the right to run the end-line. You can't retain what you don't have.

[/B][/QUOTE]Certainly sounds logical to me.The FED also wrote the language in the pertinent casebook plays to back this up:
1)CB7.5.7SitC--"Prior to the ball being thrown inbounds by A1..."
2)CB7.5.7SitD--"Before the throw-in is completed..."

If the violation or foul occurs AFTER the the throw-in ends,then Rule 7-5-2 and Rule 7-5-5 respectively will now apply.Both of these call for a "designated spot".

[mgelb]

To Bob Jenkins and Jurrassic referee,

I understand what you are saying however the person saying you can't retain what you don't have simply does not explain how the rule is written.

Retain means to keep. Priviledge is a special circumstance given for a specific reason. You can run the baseline after a made basket. THAT IS THE PRIVELEDGE. The book says and I quote "A team retains this priveledge if the scoring team commits a violation or foul and the ensuing throw-in spot would be on the end line.

Instead of explaining what is not written please explain the meaning of what is written. What priveledge does the throw-in team retain. There must be something otherwise they wouldn't state " A team retains this priveledge. Also why would they make specific reference to the throw in spot still being on the end line.

If your case is correct why wouldn't they just say if a violation or foul occurs there will be a designated throw in spot. Instead they make specific reference to a team retaining some sort of priveledge if a violation or foul occurs and the ensuing throw-in spot is on the endline.

I totally understand everything you say and I agree if you take this rule as it is written it doesn't make sense. However I can't totally disregard the verbiage such as "retains the priveledge" and something happens if the ensuing throw-in is on the endline.

[mick]

zimp is back.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by mgelb

If your case is correct why wouldn't they just say if a violation or foul occurs there will be a designated throw in spot.

They do! That's exactly what Rules 7-5-2 and 7-5-5 say!

Rule 7-5-7 refers to one very specific situation only(i.e. a foul or violation occuring before the throw-in ends,and also occuring in a spot that would bring the throw-in back to the end line)that would negate R7-5-2&5 .It is like some of the other rules in the book that aren't written that clearly.Further explanation is usually put in the case book,which happens to be true in this case.There is nothing in the rule or casebook that will otherwise negate the rules quoted above,or back up the scenario that you are trying to propose.

Please talk to your local rules interpreter before you get carried away on this one.Semantics are fine,and can be fun to argue-but they can get you in real deep doo-doo if you try to take them too far.

[mgelb]

Who or what is a zimp?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by mick
zimp is back.

BIG

[mgelb]

First and foremost I,m not carrying on about this for anything but pure officials fun.

You are correct that this is a special case because 2 years ago a change was made in the rules so the throw-in team doesn't get penalized if the defense commits a violation or foul.

While referring to rule 7-5-7 you included " a foul or violation occuring before the throw-in ends." The rule clearly doesn't state that.

Also, there is nothing in the case book about this specific rule. The closest the case book gets to this is a case on a kicked ball. No one argues that a kicked ball is a violation. Causing the ball to go out of bounds is also a violation.

I think the rule needs to be rewritten.

[mick]

Originally posted by mgelb
Who or what is a zimp?

mgelb,
zimp (aka Slider) is a young official that was quite comfortable diggin' into the rules and twisting every little word to make a point.

I believe he was interested in clarifications, but generally knowledgable posters could only "sigh" when he would pick and twist syllables and punctuation in an attempt to make a point that was not germane to the spirit and intent of the written rule.

You, likewise, have some of the finest minds explaining and re-explaining the rule to you, and yet you refuse to buy into their proffered explanations.

Once those folks "give up" because of exasperation, then, I wonder, where do we go?

mick

---

Trust your partner.

[mgelb]

Mick,

I hear what you are saying and frankly i don't want to be compared to "zimp" because by and large I respect my more experienced brethren and I don't do this with any other rule.

This particular rule was fascinating to me plus I had a bet riding on the outcome. Because of the bet I'm not sure I'm ready to succumb but for the sake of being compared to someone who nitpicks, so to speak, I give up. I certainly wouldn't make this call any other way because I believe it's interpretation is what you have described.

I do think it should be rewritten and my guess is it will be.

Take me off the zimp list.