Running baseline after violation

[BayStateRef]

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."

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by BayStateRef
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?

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

[Mark Padgett]

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.

[Blackhawk357]

Originally posted by JRutledge

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

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?

Blackhawk

[BayStateRef]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
A bat is not a violation. The violation occurs when the ball touches OOB.

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Blackhawk357



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

Blackhawk

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

[Blackhawk357]

Originally posted by BayStateRef

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?

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

[JRutledge]

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

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Blackhawk357
If the closest spot is on the side line, it's a mute point.

Blakchawk

It might also be a moot point, Blakchawk.

[ronald]

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.

[Blackhawk357]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

It might also be a moot point, Blakchawk.

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

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Blackhawk357

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.

[Blackhawk357]

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

Thanks for the credit, tho

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

[theboys]

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

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

[BayStateRef]

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 didnÂ’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 AÂ’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.