After made basket, A1 may run the baseline and retains that right if the scoring team commits a violation and the ensuing throw-in spot would be the endline. (Fed Rule 7-7)

Question: What if the defender legally hits the ball and it goes directly out of bounds on the baseline? May the team still run the baseline?

A fellow ref this morning said "causing the ball to go out of bounds" is a violation and the right to running the baseline remains. He cited Rule 9-3. The only case note refers to a kick violation. I said that once the ball is touched "legally" that the throw-in ends and that the resulting out-of-bounds would be a designated spot. I also promised to ask here for a "definitive ruling."

No you cannot.
 

No. The only way the ball can go back to the baseline and a team can still maintain their "running the baseline" previlidge, is if a defender kicks the ball, causes a foul before the throw-in has ended and both acts happen so the ball will go right back to the baseline. Everything else is a designated spot throw-in. I do not have my rulebook right in front of me, but that is the basics.

Peace

The act that ends the throwin itself must be the violation. That's why a kick is, and batting the ball OOB isn't. A bat is not a violation. The violation occurs when the ball touches OOB.

Re: No you cannot. ~ oops, I think I've got ya!
 

OK guys, I agree with the bulk of the discussion. If the ball is legally touched, the throw-in is over ~ spot throw-in.

But JRut, what about hitting the ball with a fist? :D

Blackhawk

That's what I told my friend. He says that "causing the ball to go out of bounds" is a violation. That's why it is listed in the "Violations and Penalties" section. The "baseline right" rule refers simply to "a violation" and he made a convincing case that hitting the inbounds pass so that it goes directly out of bounds is a violation. I made all the arguments you are making, but he stuck by the simple language of the rule. If "causing the ball to go out of bounds" is not a violation, then how else does one interpret Rule 9-3?

I just gave two examples.
 

You are right, if the violation happen would take the ball back to the baseline. But that is also not a legal touch. But I have never seen or called that either. But it is a violation.

Peace

Here's the flaw in your friends argument.

The violation must happen BEFORE the throw-in ends for the throw-in team to keep the privilege of running the baseline. Once the ball is legally touched by any player, the throw-in the over. When B1 touches the ball legally, the throw-in is over. The ball goes OOB well after the throw-in has ended.

JRut makes a good point, also. To keep the option to run the baseline, the succeeding throw-in must be on the baseline. If the closest spot is on the side line, it's a mute point.

Blakchawk

Thinking of another one.
 

You could have one of those boundry-line warnings or delays, and that would not lose you the "running the baseline" too. But that is why it is important to completely understand the concept behind the rule.

Peace

It might also be a moot point, Blakchawk. ;)

Baystateref,

Add to Blackhawk's point the following rule--Rule 4, Section 41, Article 5 (Throw-in ends when the passed ball touches ...an inbounds player...).

First, you have a throw in ending when it is touched and then subsequently the ball goes out of bounds. Before the defender caused the ball to go out of bounds, the ball gained inbounds status when legally touched by the defense (your sit).

Your buddy forgot that rule it seems. If he does not buy it, then at your next meeting where both of you are present, bring that situation up.

Well, I got the sound right. Doesn't that count for anything?

It would, if you did, but you didn't, so it doesn't.

Mute = myoot

Moot = moo-t

See the difference?

Roots are different, these are two totally different words. although most people can't tell the difference. Ask a lawyer what moot means. You'll be surprised. You did use it correctly, though (if "moot" was what you meant). I'd be glad to give you credit for that.

Holy Smokes.
It took almost two days :)
I figured someone would be on that one within minutes!

Thanks for the credit, tho :D

(Let's see if someone jumps on that abbreviation)

"Mute points" are what officials wish coaches and fans would make.

"Moot points" are what they actually make - the officials ignore them anyway!

My buddy who asked me to start this thread has this reply. He sent it to me by email. What follows are his remarks, not mine.

The overall consensus that once the throw-in ends it apparently ends the rule of running the base line. What does the throw-in ending have to do with how the rule is written? It is obvious these people simply didn’t read the rule.

The rule states “A team retains the privilege to run the base line if the scoring team commits a violation or foul and the ensuing throw-in spot would be on the end line.”

This rule is very clear. If there is a violation or foul and the next throw-in resulting from that violation or foul is still at the end line you retain the right to run it. This rule gives both time (the ensuing throw-in) and scope ( a violation or foul). It has absolutely nothing to do with the throw-in ending.

If you take the rule as it is written the following would be true: Team A scores a basket, B1 in-bounds the ball to B2 who is standing underneath Team A’s basket and holds the ball. A1 commits a foul on B2 or causes the ball to go out of bounds. The ensuing throw-in is on the base line and team B stills has the right to run it. That is how the rule is written.

If someone wants to take the rule out of the context of how it was written and interpret differently then this rule was very poorly written.

As we previously had discussed, causing the ball to go out of bounds is clearly a violation. In the section of definitions it defines violations as the ones listed in section 9-1 thru 9-13. 9-3 states a player should not cause the ball to go out of bounds and it then goes on to explain what the penalty is for this violation.

I find it interesting that officials as a whole have a certain degree of obstinance about them that they are certain they know the rules inside and out. Maybe that attitude is what it takes to be a good official.

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.

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.

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, ... ;)

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.

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".

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.

zimp is back.

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.

Who or what is a zimp?

BIG :D

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.

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
<hr>
Trust your partner. ;)

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.

Yer off.
 

mgelb,
zimp is all right, but the horse was "too" dead a lot of the times. ;)
mick

Re: Yer off.
 

Actually,Zimp was "there". Slider was "here". Different"nom de plume" for same person for different locations. No?

Re: Re: Yer off.
 

...similar style.

I stuck up for mgelb a couple pages ago, and you guys haven't done anything to change my mind. You are hanging wayyyyyy too much on the meaning of the word "retain".

The way it's written, using any amount of common sense, says that if you had the privilege of running the endline, and the scoring commits a foul or violation that requires an endline throw-in, you get to keep that privilege. To say that "retain" doesn't apply to this situation is, I think, not a tenable position.

As I said, we all know what the rule means. But I honestly see the discrepency. The need to put "during the throw-in" back into the wording of the rule, so there is no possible mis-interpretation. I also agree with mgelb that there is no case play that covers this situation. Just do the correct (and easy) thing and put the phrase "during the throw-in" back into 7-5-7.

Chuck

Holy Toledo!!!
 

Chuck, let us not forget that there are some Ohio Schools of Thought that will assume that if the phrase is used once, and not specifically removed, then it remains. Yo?

mick

No problem,Zimp! Stick to your guns!