backcourt on a thrown in

[constable]

I apologize if this has been covered before.

Here's the situation.

A1 throw in. A2 tries to grab the throw in but can only tip it while standing in front court.

A3 then collects the ball in the back court.

Violation or no?

Originally Posted by constable

I apologize if this has been covered before.

Here's the situation.

A1 throw in. A2 tries to grab the throw in but can only tip it while standing in front court.

A3 then collects the ball in the back court.

Violation or no?

No, team control must be established in the front court before a back court violation can occur. Tip =/= team control

[kjk5]

AremRed is correct, No violation.

This video isn't great, but shows what we are talking about. MSU player receives the throw in and fumbles it into the back court. Bo Boroski calls the violation. Eventually Mike Kitts comes over and discusses it with him (with bonus Ted Valentine!).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

This video isn't great, but shows what we are talking about. MSU player receives the throw in and fumbles it into the back court. Bo Boroski calls the violation. Eventually Mike Kitts comes over and discusses it with him (with bonus Ted Valentine!).

Prefect example of the play....and that some of the big dogs don't really know the rules all that well (but Coach Izzo knew it).

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

some of the big dogs don't really know the rules all that well (but Coach Izzo knew it).

Ah, I just think he was too close to the play. Probably looking at the feet for out of bounds and missed the fumble.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Ah, I just think he was too close to the play. Probably looking at the feet for out of bounds and missed the fumble.

If you insist...but I see it missed more than would be explained by that.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by camron rust

if you insist...but i see it missed more than would be explained by that.

+1

And it's going to get worse with time, I think, as the rule stays the same and the powerpoints fade into the veterans' memory. Eventually, the NFHS will decide to just issue a case play making this a violation. After all, everyone is already calling it that way.

[Sharpshooternes]

The black official's box out on the coach was hilarious!!! He didn't even have an illegal use of hands. Bwahahahah!!

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Ah, I just think he was too close to the play. Probably looking at the feet for out of bounds and missed the fumble.

AremRed, if it was a fumble (by definition) then it would be a violation, right?
Perhaps "muffed or bobbled" would be a better word.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by billyu2

aremred, if it was a fumble (by definition) then it would be a violation, right?
Perhaps "muffed or bobbled" would be a better word.

+1

[johnny d]

I have always been under the impression, from watching him on tv and hearing him speak at numerous camps, that Boroski is a pretty solid rules guy. I would have liked to hear the conversation that made him change his mind on this call because I think an argument can be made that the MSU player controlled the ball in the front court. He had 2 hands on the ball before he dropped it and it went into the backcourt.

[constable]

Thanks all. It'd be helpful if the NFHS book actually stated when team control inbounds starts on a throw in.

[HokiePaul]

Maybe sort of off-topic, but is there such a thing as a controlled tip that would count as team control. So for example, lets say that the throw in from A1 is off target and heading out of bounds untouched. A2, in the front court "saves" the ball from going out of bounds by intentionally tapping it to A3 who is in the back court. Could this be considered team control by A2 (and thus a backcourt violation when touched by A3) if it was clear that the tap was a controlled pass?

[APG]

Team control, for the purposes of backcourt or 3 second violations, is established at the same time as player control...by holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds. A tip, no matter how controlled, is not either of those.