You specifically stated that the case play was wrong and that you would never enforce it as such, and everyone on here disagreed with you. None of the evidence you have shown indicates that the case play is incorrect. This ain't "my first rodeo" either.

You do not have to have player control in the frontcourt to have a backcourt violation. You have to have team control.

I believe the case play is wrong. I am not the first or the last person to say that. It does not fit with the rule they have in place and yes it came up only when the rule was added for TC for a throw-in for foul purposes. Also the NF came out and said they had some issues with their wording and that only the rules on TC for a throw-in were meant for foul purposes. That is why they had to make that statement after the fact.

Can you show the rule that says how TC is establihed?

I will do it for you.

Rule 4-12-2a says: "When a player of a team is in control."

What am I missing here?

Oh, Rule 4-12-1 says: "A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding, dribbling a live ball......"

Touching a ball does not establishes control. You have to have touching before possession, but touching a ball does not mean you are holding or dribbling a ball.

And Rule 9-9-1 says: A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the front court......

You have to have player control before you have team control. Player control is restrictive to when you can call a timeout, what type of foul is called and if you can have a closely guarded count. Team control does not require player control after team control has been established, which is why you can have a BC violation.

Peace

You already had the required player control in the backcourt, which established true TC.

4-12-3b Team control continues until an opponent secures control.

The touch in the frontcourt by Team A establishes TC in the FC in the case play in question.

What does 9.9.1 C (Not 9.9.1 D) have to do with the question the Geof brought up?

This was a ball passed by a thrower (from a throw-in), and the play or question from Geof was off of a throw-in (Which again we are in a rules myth thread) not a pass from a person on the court.

What part of having control in the FC is a myth with the BC violation rule?

Peace

Because OKREF refuted your not entirely correct post on the first page of this thread by citing this exact case play that we are debating.

The only reason I posted the case play was because of the quote above. I was never talking about a throw in. Just pointing out the fact that TC had been established, a pass was made, TC still exists, the ball was touched by A in the front court, establishing TC status by A in the FC, A was then the first to touch the ball in the BC, resulting in a violation. Rut, yes on a throw in there must be player control (which means TC) before a BC can happen, but your quote that I have highlighted doesn't apply unilaterally.

Now you are adding stuff. We were only talking about a throw-in. And still you have to have PC before you can have any TC at any point. Now if it does not apply as you say, what did you show that even applies to this case?

Peace

Rut, what are you missing? You said this. The case play refutes what you are saying. It can be possible to have TC in FC without a player actually possessing the basketball, but not on a throw in, but in the case play it is possible.

I understand that the original question was about a throw in, but your blanket statement is only half right. You need to re-read my original post. I said that the case play didn't apply to a throw in.

I was not making a blanket statement about anything. We were only talking about a throw-in, specific to a question that was asked by Geof. We were not talking about all situations for a BC violation. It seems to me you pulled out something and tried to make a point while not reading the entire conversation. I was answering a question about a throw-in. But even what I said still applies to all situations. Because if you did not first establish player control, you will not have team control. But that was not the point of the comments you quoted. ;)

It is like I made a comment about requirements to be a US Senator but you are talking about what it takes to be President. Well, some of the basic requirements are the exact same, but there are some differences. I was not talking (and it is obvious if you read all the comments) about a player that has established TC in-bounds (FC or BC status) and the ball being tipped around and causing a violation. We were only talking about a throw-in (very specific) and why it would not be a violation if Team A touches or taps a ball in the FC and goes and touches it in the BC. There were like 4 other people that made the very same point but used different words.

Peace

OKREF posted a case play that contradicted a blanket statement you made, and you proceeded to state your disagreement with that case play. It really is that simple.

No hard feelings, but that is what happened.

Jeff was talking specifically about TC after a throw-in, which was a question brought up by Geof. TC control does not carry over from the throw-in, it must be established inbounds before there can be a BC violation. That's how I read Jeff's initial response.

OKREF was responding to Rut's statement.

He posted the case play that contradicts this statement, which is the play we have been debating.

Well, after a throw-in you don't have TC simply by touching the ball in the FC. This discussion was prompted by a statement about throw ins.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

That is great, but OKREF tends to not read the entire conversation when he response to stuff. He can give all the case plays he wants, but at least can we talk about the actual conversation? The case play he was discussing was not about a throw-in, which is again is the "myth" we are trying to dispell and clarify the actual rule. I did not realize there was an confusion about a BC violation when the ball is already in play.

Peace

If you were so concerned with what the "actual conversation" was, then I'm confused why you responded with your disagreement of the case play in question.