On the subject of "when does the count start?":

1) Someone posted that he was going to ask his state interpreter, who is also on the rules committee. Any results on that?

2) Some have asked for references. Referee Magazine,in the "Ask Us" column has discussed this issue. I know, it's not the NFHS, and RefMag does make some mistakes, but it's better than nothing (IMHO). Also, I (personally) wouldn't use whether other officials start the count as the guideline here. It's rare enough that there's any real difference in the count, most of us are creatures of habit and this habit hasn't been ingrained, it's often "exciting" enough that we forget to count, and some of us just don't know the rule.

Anyhow, here are two plays from December, 1998 (so the references might be a little off, especially those for NCAA):

Play 1: Federation and NCAA men's rules. A1 is dribbling in the frontcourt when B1 bats the ball into the backcourt. The ball bounces a few times in the backcourt before A1 retrieves it. When does the 10-second backcourt count begin?

Ruling 1: The batting by B1 does not chage the team status of the ball; team A is still in team posession. Since team A is in continuus control during a loose ball, the count begins when the ball achieved backcourt status by bouncing in the backcourt. Editor's note: There is no 10-second backcourt restriction in NCAA women's games. (Fed 4-12-4;9-8;NCAA 4-7b, 9-9)

Play 2: Federation and NCAA rules. A2 is dribbling the ball in the backcourt. A2 ends the dribble and passes the ball toward A3. The ball instead strikes the leg of B3, who is standing in the frontcourt. The ball then deflects into the backcourt where it is recovered by A2. Did the 10-second count end when the ball was touched in the frontcourt or does the count continue until there is control in the frontcourt?

Ruling 2: When the ball struk B3 in the frontcourt, the ball achieved frontcourt status, thus terminating the 10-second count. When the ball deflects into the backcourt, a new 10-second count begins. The fact that team A retained team control during the entire sequence is of no consequence. Federation and NCAA rules agree. (Fed 4-4-2, 9-7; NCAA 4-7b, 9-11)

Bob - thanks for the great research. That's what some of us have been saying all along.

BTW - I usually use my old copies of Referee to wrap fish ;)

10 second count
 

I agree that it is not THAT important as to when to start the count as it is to remember to start the count. I agree on referee mag also, it has subjects that invoke a lot of discussion but I would NOT use it as gospel. That is what the NF and NCAA interpretors are for!!

Good find Bob! Thanks.
mick

After talking to my states rules interputer (ca) ....I am sticking to what I said earlier...The 10 second count does not start, until a player gains control of the ball again. The Ca state rules interputer said that yes there is Team control per say, but that until a player secures control of the ball there should be no count. I hope that everyone out there ask jis/her local rules interputer about this, to see what they say.

Can the CA State Rules Interpreter give us a rule reference so that we may be as sure as he is or is this just a gut feeling that he has?

What rule can he reference that requires player control to start a 10 second count when team control already exist?

For Bob- I haven't had a chance to speak to Mr. Knox yet as our state rules clinic is not until the 12th. But I'll see if I can email him and get his interpretation.

Be consistent
 

Really I feel that the job of officials is to be consistent. If you feel that you should start a count when the ball touches the midcourt line, then do that. If you feel that a player should go back and get the ball or at least touch the ball, then do that. I really do not care, because either way I feel that you should do what makes you happy. It is not different to other rules in the rulebook and the use of common sense. It really is a silly argument either way and for those that get your panties all bunched up because we might have different views really need to grow up.

Rutledge --

I'm new, but I have learned this concept: "Don't call it if you don't see it." I can't see your shorts, whether they are bunched or not, so I'm not callin' it! Could you please extend the rest of us the same courtesy?

Thanks, juulie

This situation outlines one of the sticky issues with the NFHS. They do not interpret a number of the rules. They leave that up to the state associations. So, in some states this will be a diffeent call than in others. Personally, I think the count should not start until the player touches the ball again. If I was the state interpreter, this is how our state would make the call. I think everyone should check with their state to see how they want it called.

I think this is illustrative of the difficulty of interpreting rules, in games, in law, etc. There are so many different permutations of real-life situations that any governing body will have trouble thinking of every possible one and providing a formal interpretation. My bet is that this is something that hasn't been raised to many state rules interpreters and they will give an interpretation based on their best sense of the letter and the spirit of the rules, and that we will see the same differences from state to state that we have seen on this board in the previous thread. Since most associations will probably never see this question raised, it leaves it to the ref on the floor to come up with a consistent application of the rules to the best of his or her ability.

Hey Mark, doesn't this piss off the fish?

My question is this: How often does this play happen to you guys??? :)

Pretty funny
 

You don't wanna come out and play?
We're still awaiting your interp. ;)
mick

I do see this......
 

I do see that some people get very upset because we have an obvious confusion based on the rule. As I have said, nobody is right and nobody is wrong. Because there are people calling people names over a silly rule that is not better defined in the casebook, people are making into a life or death discussion. I do see that, and I have the right to tell you and anyone else to grow the hell up because we seem to disagree. I do not know where you are from, but all the associations that I belong to, not one night was there not a disagreement about a rule, a mechanic or a philosophy. But you want to know something, nobody got personal or name called, they just disagreed. 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. I do 4 sports and I have not run into one person that did not agree on all the rules with me or me with them on all the rules and mechanics. This is why they have editorial revisions every year. If everything was 100% clear, they would have no need.

I do know one thing, I see that!! And I do not back down from my original statement. If something else offended you then say that, but I stand by my comment!!!

If they complain too much, I give them a T. :)

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?".

10 second
 

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!

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.)

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]

Re: 10 second
 

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?

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

casebook
 

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.

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

Re: I do see this......
 

[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

Final Post
 

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.