need a clairification

BktBallRef

observer wrote
Team "A" scores a basket, team "B" with the ball o/b,
running the baseline, releases the ball onto the playing
floor at which time team "A" kicks the ball. Officials
whistle blows indicating a kick ball. Does Team "B"
retain the baseline to run or is he/she put on a spot..

Observer, if the kick occurs within the area where an endline throw-in would normally be awarded, B would retain the right to run the endline.

But let's say the throwin was released and the ball was kicked by a defender FT line extended on the sideline or at the division line. A spot throw-in from the sideline would be awarded.

That's why Snaq said it dependson where will the ensuing throw-in be adminsitered.

BillyMac

BktBallRef wrote
A spot throw-in from the sideline would be awarded.

What? You don't get a "run the sideline" throwin on a violation after a made basket? Now that doesn't seem fair?

Freddy

observer wrote
Team "A" scores a basket, team "B" with the ball o/b,
running the baseline, releases the ball onto the playing
floor at which time team "A" kicks the ball. Officials
whistle blows indicating a kick ball. Does Team "B"
retain the baseline to run or is he/she put on a spot..

Depends on if the original throw-in was from the first "baseline" or the third "baseline." 😉 Did the kick take place in the infield or the outfield? 😀

Adam

Freddy wrote
Depends on if the original throw-in was from the first "baseline" or the third "baseline." 😉 Did the kick take place in the infield or the outfield? 😃

Was it a thrown ball or a batted ball that was kicked?

BillyMac

Snaqwells wrote
Was it a thrown ball or a batted ball that was kicked?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0Jsz-fSNd4

APG

Freddy wrote
Depends on if the original throw-in was from the first "baseline" or the third "baseline." 😉 Did the kick take place in the infield or the outfield? 😃

Baseline vs endline...along with "requesting" a timeout vs. "calling" a timeout are silly (IMO) to worry about as far as semantics go...it's not the same as people using "over the back" or "on the floor" as those phrases imply improper rules application/judgement and perpetuate rules myths...

/end mini rant 😀

BillyMac

Freddy wrote
Depends on if the original throw-in was from the first "baseline" or the third "baseline." Did the kick take place in the infield or the outfield?

AllPurposeGamer wrote
Baseline vs endline, "requesting" a timeout vs. "calling" a timeout, are silly to worry about as far as semantics go.

I'm not going to disagree with you AllPurposeGamer. It is silly, but officials should use the correct language whenever, and wherever, possible. I don't mind posters, like Freddy, occasionally reminding us, with a little humor, about using the proper language, as long as it's not mean spirited, or condescending. Over the years, semantics comments on the Forum, like Freddy's, have encouraged me to think of timeouts as being a two step process, the requesting, and the granting, and that's it's not as simple as a coach calling a timeout.

APG

BillyMac wrote
Im not going to disagree with you AllPurposeGamer. It is silly, but officials should use the correct language whenever, and wherever, possible. I don't mind posters, like Freddy, occasionally reminding us, with a little humor, about using the proper language.

My point is I'm never going to get on an official or even correct one for using either that language in that case...or if they used for example halfcourt line vs. division line vs midcourt line, etc. That kind of language does not and should not cause confusion as they just locations on the court that I hope anyone with a whistle knows and understand.

Now, when we discuss rules and concepts that have specific definitions in the rules book, it is then that I would expect an official to use proper language...so we don't have a situation where, for example, someone uses a dictionary definition of intentional rather than the rule book definition.

BillyMac

AllPurposeGamer wrote
Midcourt line.

Midcourt line? You mean the one that used to separate the forecourt from the midcourt? The line that gave a dribbler a new five second closely guarded count when he crossed it? The line defined by the twenty-eight foot hashmark? That line? It doesn't exist any more. I believe that it became extinct back in the twentieth century.

Camron Rust

BillyMac wrote
I'm not going to disagree with you AllPurposeGamer. It is silly, but officials should use the correct language whenever, and wherever, possible. I don't mind posters, like Freddy, occasionally reminding us, with a little humor, about using the proper language, as long as it's not mean spirited, or condescending. Over the years, semantics comments on the Forum, like Freddy's, have encouraged me to think of timeouts as being a two step process, the requesting, and the granting, and that's it's not as simple as a coach calling a timeout.

As for baseline/endline, I believe the NFHS has used both terms in official rulings/publications. As such, it has been established as a proper synonym for endline.

Nevadaref

Camron Rust wrote
As for baseline/endline, I believe the NFHS has used both terms in official rulings/publications. As such, it has been established as a proper synonym for endline.

I've always seen the NFHS use "end line" in basketball publications. You will see baseline in the baseball/softball books though. 😉

BillyMac

Camron Rust wrote
As for baseline/endline, I believe the NFHS has used both terms in official rulings/publications.

The NFHS has also used the phrase "call a timeout" in the casebook.

BillyMac

BillyMac wrote
The NFHS has also used the phrase "call a timeout" in the casebook.

Here's only one of several examples:

4.44.3 SITUATION C: A1 receives a pass and establishes the right foot as the
pivot. While faking a pass or try, A1 lifts the pivot foot and stands on the left foot
alone while undecided as to what to do. Has A1 traveled? RULING: No. Traveling
would occur only if A1 begins a dribble or returns the pivot foot to the floor. While
in this position A1 may pass, try for goal or call a time-out.

That being said, I still like using the terms "request" and "grant" in discussing timeout situations because it stresses that this is actually a two step process.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

BillyMac wrote
Here's only one of several examples:

4.44.3 SITUATION C: A1 receives a pass and establishes the right foot as the
pivot. While faking a pass or try, A1 lifts the pivot foot and stands on the left foot
alone while undecided as to what to do. Has A1 traveled? RULING: No. Traveling
would occur only if A1 begins a dribble or returns the pivot foot to the floor. While
in this position A1 may pass, try for goal or call a time-out.

That being said, I still like using the terms "request" and "grant" in discussing timeout situations because it stresses that this is actually a two step process.

Billy:

I agree with you about "using the terms "request" and "grant" in discussing timeout situations because it stresses that this is actually a two step process." That said, it really burns my tuchus (by the way, it is 97F here in Toledo today, and boy am I glad that Mark, Jr., and I decided not to make ourselves available for either the ASA and USSSA girls' fastpitch softball tournaments in NW Ohio this weekend; the DeNucci Family has tickets for the MudHens game tomorrow night) when incorrect terminology is used in an official NFHS Ruling such as Casebook Play 4.44.3 SITUATION C.

Happy Fourth of July!!

MTD, Sr.

bainsey

Camron Rust wrote
As for baseline/endline, I believe the NFHS has used both terms in official rulings/publications.

NFHS and NCAA, no. NBA, yes.

Having said that, I see nothing wrong with correcting proper wording in this forum. If we're so into accuracy -- as we should be -- we should walk our talk.

BillyMac

bainsey wrote
If we're so into accuracy, as we should be, we should walk our talk.

Let's be accurate here. It's not a walk, it's a travel. We should travel our talk.

Freddy

BillyMac wrote
Let's be accurate here. It's not a walk, it's a travel. We should travel our talk.

Like what results when, after passing up a close "over the back" call, I blow my whistle for a "jump ball", then award the ball to team A for an "inbounds pass" on the "baseline", but then "call the play dead" when the thrower steps out of his "three foot area" which prompts from me a good "walking with the ball" signal after which A2 "calls a timeout" for which I signal to the bench using the "T" signal and all the players but the free-thrower stand behind the "halfcourt line" for the technical foul I inadvertantly called. Not sure why we need to be precise with our terminology. 😀
Can't think of any more relevant situational malaprops to put into a sentence.
Besides, nobody will read this today because everybody else is out barbequing or doing whatever they do to celebrate the 235th birthday of the country of the guy who invented basketball while others like me have to maintain our diligent work schedule protecting the citizenry from terroristic sabotage and threat. 🙂

BillyMac

Freddy wrote
Others like me have to maintain our diligent work schedule protecting the citizenry from terroristic sabotage and threat.

I'll throw an extra "dog" on the grill, and drink an extra beer in your honor.

SmokeEater

Freddy wrote
Besides, nobody will read this today because everybody else is out grilling (barbequing is the result of cooking on a grill, I learned that from an American) or doing whatever they do to celebrate the 235th birthday of the country of the guy who invented basketball (Dr Naismith was Canadian)while others like me have to maintain our diligent work schedule protecting the citizenry from terroristic sabotage and threat. 🙂

Just saying! 😉

Happy 4th Everyone.

Freddy

SmokeEater wrote
Just saying! 😉
Happy 4th Everyone.

By golly, that's a grilling I deserve on this holiday weekend! No sense sitting here wrong when I can announce that I hereby stand corrected. 🙂

BTW - Disatisfied probably with the health care system north of the border and the way the standard mountie uniform didn't fit his rather short stature, our good doctor fled southward to Springfield and eventually to Kansas where he renounced his affection for LaBatts and Molson and became an official Bud drinker and American citizen in 1925. Eh. (Thanx, SmokeEater. I learned something today!)