[JRutledge]

That is why this is causing all the discussion. This rule is not clearly defined in the NF casebook. It is hard to believe that this situation is not in there, but I believe the intent of the rule is not start a count just because the ball has physically touched the backcourt. I think in that case the players on either side are going to be going after the ball and trying to make a play which will not affect the play at all in this area of the rules. Either way that you choose to handle it is really not wrong in itself, but I do feel that something should be done to make this clearer. I like the way that I would handle the situation because I feel it makes more sense, but that is me and I am only one person.

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
I believe that the essential struggle with this is the element of team control. Only in the singular case cited in these two threads, where B taps the ball backcourt, does A retain team control in the backcourt with an opportunity to legally establish player control. On A's inbounds, the team control does not start until the ball is under player control. On a shot (missed and tapped free to backcourt, blocked all the way to backcourt, etc.), again there is no team control without there first being player control in the backcourt.

In the absence of a direct interpretation of the rules on any specific issue, the question becomes one of both examing the rules and the intent of the rules. One can logically piece together the rules and state that team control already exists as soon as the ball hits backcourt so the count starts immediately.

Alternatively, one can choose to deal with this from a sense of the intent of the rules. Clearly, the basic intent of the rule is to ensure that, when A has ball in backcourt, A advances up court with the ball without undue delay. When you look at cases that exist, you see that in all cases available to examine, player control always creates the team control. The concept of player control first being established is in keeping with that basic intent that A not delay in advancing the ball. It is logical to say that A is not delaying when a ball has bounced into the backcourt off B's tap. Also, remember that A is allowed to let the ball sit loose in the backcourt in the all cases in the casebook (inbounds passes, missed shots), until such time as they first establish player control in the backcourt. Within the rules, the ball can lay dormant for an entire period if A allows it to and B does not come and force the issue. Therefore, from intent of the rules, one may derive a different, but equally legitimate interpretation.

I am not advocating either interpretation. Both are interpretations that can be logically reached utilizing the rules and case books. Until a governing body addresses this case, there will never be one answer to this question that all can, or should, accept.

[Edited by Hawks Coach on Nov 1st, 2000 at 06:54 PM]