2015-16 The Most Misunderstood Basketball Rules ...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Yes, that is the case. The rule is an absolute mess, but it is what it is. Until team control has been established on the playing court (a player holding or dribbling a live ball), a BC violation is not possible.

Essentially, there are two types of team control without either being clearly defined.

Pseudo Team Control starts when the ball is placed at the disposal of a thrower.

True Team Control starts when a player first obtains player control inbounds.

Both end at the same time....when the ball is released on a try, the other team gains control, etc.

Psuedo Team Control is all that is needed for a team control foul.

True Team Control is needed for any other case.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Geof

If that is the case, then that would be the missing link. Thank you!

4-19-7 is the definition of team control foul. It says in part that it is a team control foul if the throw in team fouls from the start of the throw in until player control is established inbounds. As noted by BNR, it is only there because they dont want the throw in team shooting free throws if it commits a foul prior to the ball being possessed.

This is a completely separate animal from team control inbounds. Once the ball is in control of a player somewhere inbounds team control in the court/inbounds begins. Until that happens backcourt issues/violations do not come in to play.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Yes you do. Certainly not on a throw in, but it is possible to touch the ball in the FC without controlling it to have FC status.

Case book 9.9.1 C: A1 is dribbling in his/her backcourt and throws a pass to the frontcourt. While standing in A's frontcourt A2 touches the ball and deflects it back to A's backcourt where it touches the floor. A2 recovers in the backcourt.

RULING: Violation. The ball was in control of A1 and Team A, and a player from A was the last to touch the ball in frontcourt and a player of A was the first to touch it after it returned to the back court.

Having status and committing a violation are not the same thing.

You just have established control in the FC before you can have a BC violation according to the rule. And you must not be one of the exceptions stated in the rule either.

And that casebook play you mentioned does not go along with the written rule. When all else fails, I am going with the rulebook and what it states.

Peace

[Geof]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Having status and committing a violation are not the same thing.

You just have established control in the FC before you can have a BC violation according to the rule. And you must not be one of the exceptions stated in the rule either.

And that casebook play you mentioned does not go along with the written rule. When all else fails, I am going with the rulebook and what it states.

Peace

Having status and committing a violation are not the same thing, as you state. But determining the status of the ball lends itself to determining whether a violation has been made.

The case OKREF states goes along perfectly with the rules. There is team control. The ball being touched in the front court gives the ball front court status while still in team control. The ball goes into the backcourt after having established frontcourt status and is first touched by a member of the same team. Backcourt violation is the call.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Having status and committing a violation are not the same thing.

You just have established control in the FC before you can have a BC violation according to the rule. And you must not be one of the exceptions stated in the rule either.

And that casebook play you mentioned does not go along with the written rule. When all else fails, I am going with the rulebook and what it states.

Peace

You were originally talking about a throw in and how simply touching the ball in the FC after the throw in does not establish team control. As you said, the ball's status doesnt necessarily mean a violation. The ball is in the FC when it is tipped on the throw in but there is no team control yet. At some point there has to be team control in the FC for there to be a violation. The case play okref cited doesnt deal with a throw in/tip etc. didnt really apply to what you were trying to say.

Having said that, the case play he cited is consistent with the written rule. A1 has the ball in the BC (player and team control). He passes the ball toward A2 in FC. ball is in air---team control still exists. A2 deflects it back. When the ball hits A2 there is still team control and the ball is now in FC. It goes back to A1 and he first to touch it. Violation. 9-1-1. The BC rule only requires team control to have been in FC at some time. Player control IN the FC isnt required. There has to be player control somewhere inbounds before we have team control but it, team control, can start in the BC.

[BillyMac]

The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control (and initial player control
when coming from a throw-in); the ball must have achieved frontcourt status; the team in team control must
be the last to touch the ball before it goes into the backcourt; that same team must be the first to touch after
the ball has been in the backcourt.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Having status and committing a violation are not the same thing.

You just have established control in the FC before you can have a BC violation according to the rule. And you must not be one of the exceptions stated in the rule either.

And that casebook play you mentioned does not go along with the written rule. When all else fails, I am going with the rulebook and what it states.

Peace

The case book is the interpretation of the rules book. I go to the case book when it explicitly says if X happens Y is the result.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Having status and committing a violation are not the same thing.

You just have established control in the FC before you can have a BC violation according to the rule. And you must not be one of the exceptions stated in the rule either.

And that casebook play you mentioned does not go along with the written rule. When all else fails, I am going with the rulebook and what it states.

Peace

Yes it does. Team control continues until the opponent secures control. Control in the BC, followed by a pass to the FC that touches a member of Team A, would establish team control in the FC. The casebook play goes along just fine with the written rule.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Yes it does. Team control continues until the opponent secures control. Control in the BC, followed by a pass to the FC that touches a member of Team A, would establish team control in the FC. The casebook play goes along just fine with the written rule.

There is TC for foul purposes and there is TC for other purposes like a BC violation.

Again, to have a BC violation you have to have TC while in the FC first. You cannot have TC in the FC until you possess the ball as a team.

And if the casebook and the rule goes along just fine, why are people confused with how the rule is written? Because this was never the case before the rule about TC came into play for fouls. And the NF also clearly said that the only reason they change the rule in the first place was for foul purposes, not to change the rule on the BC violation.

Peace

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There is TC for foul purposes and there is TC for other purposes like a BC violation.

Again, to have a BC violation you have to have TC while in the FC first. You cannot have TC in the FC until you possess the ball as a team.

And if the casebook and the rule goes along just fine, why are people confused with how the rule is written? Because this was never the case before the rule about TC came into play for fouls. And the NF also clearly said that the only reason they change the rule in the first place was for foul purposes, not to change the rule on the BC violation.

Peace

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.

[bob jenkins]

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.

I agree. And I also agree that it's confusing.

When I first started, RefMag or someone had the "three criteria" for a BC violation. The first was "TC in the FC." While that's technically correct (or was at the time, before there was TC on a throw-in), it was too confusin -- too many though it meant, literally, that someone on the team had control of the ball in the FC.

So, I immediately translated it (to myself) as "four criteria" -- 1) TC, 2) Ball reaches FC, 3) Last to touch before ball goes to BC, 4) first to touch after ball goes to BC. (and, note that the last two do not require that the first touch is in the FC and the second is in the BC).

Because of the rule change, the first criteria is now "PC inbounds"

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

So, I immediately translated it (to myself) as "four criteria" -- 1) TC, 2) Ball reaches FC, 3) Last to touch before ball goes to BC, 4) first to touch after ball goes to BC. (and, note that the last two do not require that the first touch is in the FC and the second is in the BC).Because of the rule change, the first criteria is now "PC inbounds

The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control (and initial player control
when coming from a throw-in); the ball must have achieved frontcourt status; the team in team control must
be the last to touch the ball before it goes into the backcourt; that same team must be the first to touch after
the ball has been in the backcourt.

[JRutledge]

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:

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:

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

[SC Official]

JRut, you are making an argument that is correct for a throw-in. No one is refuting your point on that basis. However, your notion (at least the way I understand it) that player control must exist in the FC before a BC violation can happen is simply not true. The case play in question has nothing to do with a throw-in. If true team control has existed in the BC and a pass to the FC touches a member of Team A, then that establishes team control in the FC, which is the requirement for a violation.

A team is in control until the opponent secures control.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

JRut, you are making an argument that is correct for a throw-in. No one is refuting your point on that basis. However, your notion (at least the way I understand it) that player control must exist in the FC before a BC violation can happen is simply not true. The case play in question has nothing to do with a throw-in. If true team control has existed in the BC and a pass to the FC touches a member of Team A, then that establishes team control in the FC, which is the requirement for a violation.

A team is in control until the opponent secures control.

The caseplay has nothing to do with what the official was having a problem with. The "myth" he did not understand was about a throw-in. Not sure what you are trying to argue here.

I also quoted the actual rule. I did not make a claim and leave it alone. I quoted the actual rule. The rule says that you must have TC in the FC before you can have a BC violation. The rule says TC is not established in the court until player possession (which is the same thing that starts PC).

If it is simply not true, then what rule are you reading? BTW, all we are talking about anyway is the a backcourt violation. That is why you cannot have a violation for a thrower-in to throw the ball to the BC and be touched by their teammate. If that was the case, then you would be right.

And if you having not been paying attention, there were a couple of other people saying the exact same thing. That is why I quoted the actual rule. This is not my first rodeo man.

Peace