Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Official
The caseplay that OKREF cited has been in the rule book since before the team control mess. And if it wasn't accurate, the NFHS would have changed it. Player control in the FC is not necessarily a requirement for a backcourt violation. As long as PC had been established inbounds at some point, BC violation rules are in effect.
Yes, you must have TC. You do not necessarily need player control. A pass from the BC to FC that touches a member of Team A would establish TC in the FC by rule, assuming initial player control was established in the BC.
|
You must first have PC to have TC. Actually you have PC on a throw-in which is why you can request a time-out during a throw-in and you. Then after you have PC then you have TC. But for this rule, it says you must have established control on the FC, which does not start until a player has gained control of the ball, which requires a player to have control of the ball (Which again is stated in 4-12-2a says: "When a player of the team is in control). Tipping the ball does not start TC on the court.
You can keep telling me what the casebook says, but for some strange reason, there is not even and example of this play in the Simplified and Illustrated Rules book which shows several examples of why we do not call a BC violation until control is established onto the court.
Again, Rule 9-1-1 says:
Quote:
|
A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt........
|
And most of all in Rule 9-1-3 says:
Quote:
|
During a jump ball, throw-in or while on defense, a player may legally jump from his/her backcourt to the frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and return to the floor with the one or both feet in the backcourt. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference the first foot downs in the frontcourt or backcourt.
|
You do not have TC in the front court during a throw-in until possession.
The original question was a person having a misunderstanding with this rule. You IMO are trying to argue the point that causes the confusion.
Honestly I do not care what a casebook play says when they clearly did not use their Simplified and Illustrated Rules book to back up that interpretation. And if you have been paying attention, a lot of people here have had issues with that interpretation for the very same reason I have as well.
Peace