Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
iirc, this case play was changed in the 2005 timeframe -- and we noted it was "wrong" then.
If you look at 2.10.1.F (I think -- I'm away from my books right now), you find a similar play, but the error is discovered during a held ball. If the arrow is pointing to B, that's enough to be a change of possession. So, imo, being fouled and entitled to either a throw-in or FTs should also meet the "change of possession" criteria.
|
I hadn't seen this case play. It's interesting that they specifically say that if the arrow is pointing to A, then 2-10-6 applies and the FTs are taken with players in the lane. This discredits my theory that "change of team possession" is any time a team with TC loses TC.
With this case play in mind, here's a revised definition of "change of team possession": TC status (whether A, B, or no TC) shifts from one status to another during a live ball following the CE or would otherwise shift to a status different from the status that existed immediately prior to the dead ball if not for the CE. Then B's rebound is a "change of team possession" in OP's scenario and 2.10.1.F is a "change of team possession" if B has the arrow.
This definition would create a problem, however, if in 2.10.1.F the next dead ball is a foul by B where A would be entitled to FTs. While I don't think it's necessarily fair for A to get the FTs from that new foul since the only reason they had possession in the first place is because they got a throw-in due to the CE, there's absolutely no rule that lets the officials cancel that foul in this situation. But there definitely hasn't been a "change of team possession".
2-10 is unclear about this. I wish they'd include language to clarify what exactly constitutes a "change of team possession".