Ten Seconds - Revisited

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Bradley Batt
My question is this: How often does this play happen to you guys???

It happens enough to me that I make sure I start the count
as soon as the ball bounces into the back court. And when
I see it happen to others (partner or I'm just watching)
and they don't count my first thought is "this guy is
looking lazy, where's the count?".

[Glenn Lampman]

When does the 10 second count start during the in-bounds? When the ball is touched or in player possession. I think that I would use that same senario in the ball being batted into back court and start a new 10 second count when it is touched or A has it in possession (player, not team)
That would give the 10 second count some continuity!

[Camron Rust]

Here's an easy way to determine when the backcourt count should start/continue whether it's a throwin or a ball that is inbounds....


If all of the questions are true, start the count and keep counting until one of them is not true (or you reach 10):

1. Is there team control?
2. Does the ball have backcourt status?

The order does not matter.

On a throw-in a touch may occur before or simultaneous with team control. Only when both are true does the 10-second count start.

On a ball that is not a throw-in, which generally implies team control already exists, the count starts when the ball reaches backcourt since team control already exists.

For rebounds, blocked shots, and steals, it is no different. Only when, and immediately when, both conditions are true does the count start.

(I believe that the NCAA declared a few years ago the the shot clock and 10 second count actually start on the touch of a throw-in to prevent teams from burning more clock than intended during a possession.)

[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]

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Glenn Lampman
When does the 10 second count start during the in-bounds? When the ball is touched or in player possession. I think that I would use that same senario in the ball being batted into back court and start a new 10 second count when it is touched or A has it in possession (player, not team)
That would give the 10 second count some continuity!

Under NF, the count starts when team control is established in the backcourt. Team control is established when a player controls the ball. But team control does not end when player control is lost unless a shot is taken, B gains possession or the ball becomes dead. That's the only reason PC has any importance at all, because it establishes team control.

A count is started when A has team contol and the ball is in their BC. That is continuity.

Try this one.

A1 inbounds to A2 in the BC. A2 begins to dribble. He stops and passes the ball to A1, who is still in the BC. But B1 deflects the ball and the ball is loose in the BC. Do you keep counting or do stop the count?

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
(I believe that the NCAA declared a few years ago the the shot clock and 10 second count actually start on the touch of a throw-in to prevent teams from burning more clock than intended during a possession.)

The shot clock starts on touching. The 10-second count on control.

[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]

[Dave King]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

If all of the questions are true, start the count and keep counting until one of them is not true (or you reach 10):

1. Is there team control?
2. Does the ball have backcourt status?

The order does not matter.

[/B]

I never really thought this to be a big problem - and to me, the rule is quite clear and simple:

NF 9-8:

"A player shall not be, NOR MAY HIS/HER TEAM BE, in continuous control of a ball which is in his/her backcourt for 10 seconds."

As Camron stated: Team Control + Ball w/ backcourt status = 10 second count.

During a throw-in, there is no 10-count until team control has been established. So a throw-in tipped by EITHER team does not begin your 10-count, but not until team control is established.

I believe the play described (B1 deflecting ball to A's backcourt), used to be a case-book play years ago. They added to the play by saying when the ball went backcourt,
players from both teams let the ball sit, hesitating to pick it up. The ruling was that a 10-count begins when the ball in team control gains backcourt status. If you reach 10, violation on team A.

dk

[Shawn LeBleu]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge
[B]So I think it is sad that the last post was closed because people are more concerned about being right than just being confident in what they feel.
[B]Rutledge --

Rutledge & Others,

I closed the last post because I got my answer. I only post questions in order to find out information that will help me become a better official.
I never intended a rules question to be a forum for a pissing match between officials I don't even know.
All I wanted was an answer to a rules question and I got it.

Shawn

[bob jenkins]

I agree with Shawn. I only re-opened the discussion because someone, reasonably, asked for support for what happend to be my position. I recognize that the support I had was not exactly what was requested.

AFAIK, both sided of the issue have been fully explored -- at least until (if) we get an "official" interpretations. Although, depending on what that interp is, it still may not change some minds.

Accordingly, I'm closing this thread. If someone has additional reference material, on either side, feel free to start a new thread on this, or to contact me to re-open this one.