Video Request: St. Johns at Seton Hall - Inadvertent Whistle

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

If they ruled an inadvertent whistle after the tipped (loose) ball, they should have gone to the possession arrow to determine which team would get the ball. Does anyone know if SH had the possession arrow?

Umm. That’s not how it works. Question for you: who had team control at the time of the IW?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Umm. That’s not how it works. Question for you: who had team control at the time of the IW?

If the rule is the same as the NFHS, no one. And, as far as I can tell, it is. Team control on a throw-in is solely for the purposes of administering fouls. True team control begins only once a player in-bounds is holding or dribbling the ball.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If the rule is the same as the NFHS, no one. And, as far as I can tell, it is. Team control on a throw-in is solely for the purposes of administering fouls. True team control begins only once a player in-bounds is holding or dribbling the ball.

Agree. Should have gone AP. Maybe they did...Doesn’t look like it from clip but maybe there was more that isn’t shown...

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If the rule is the same as the NFHS, no one. And, as far as I can tell, it is. Team control on a throw-in is solely for the purposes of administering fouls. True team control begins only once a player in-bounds is holding or dribbling the ball.

I use NFHS and cite 4-12-2d and 4-12-3, and the absence of contravening evidence in 4-12 articles 4-6. There are also no 4.12 case plays that back up your interpretation.

This is a POI case involving a team that was in control, in my opinion. But I am willing to be proven wrong if you can come up with a clearer reference rule or case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I use NFHS and cite 4-12-2d and 4-12-3, and the absence of contravening evidence in 4-12 articles 4-6. There are also no 4.12 case plays that back up your interpretation.

This is a POI case involving a team that was in control, in my opinion. But I am willing to be proven wrong if you can come up with a clearer reference rule or case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Take a look at this thread.
https://forum.officiating.com/basket...whats-poi.html

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I use NFHS and cite 4-12-2d and 4-12-3, and the absence of contravening evidence in 4-12 articles 4-6. There are also no 4.12 case plays that back up your interpretation.

This is a POI case involving a team that was in control, in my opinion. But I am willing to be proven wrong if you can come up with a clearer reference rule or case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can also look at the POE in the back of the 2017/18 rule book. It is same there as in 14/15 book.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BigCat

You can also look at the POE in the back of the 2017/18 rule book. It is same there as in 14/15 book.

Got all that and understand it. We don’t count 3s, 10s, make court location determinations, yada yada yada, until player/team control inbounds. Other rules already exist to support all of these facets. The POE just interprets them in one place for those who still—some ten years after the 4-17 rule change—overthink this.

BUT!! The POE—which is just that and not an actual rule—mentions nothing about IW/POI situations during TIs before control is established inbounds. So with that, a plain reading of 4-12/13, as already argued, indicates that a team is in control during a TI after the pass is released and before player control is established inbounds. No gymnastics (to borrow the metaphor used last year) are needed to explain this. It’s right there in black and white in the rule book. There is no 4-12-3d that says “...the ball is released on a TI pass.” That’s all the NFHS would need to do to favor your interpretation, and yet in ten years they haven’t, and I believe that’s precisely because they don’t favor your interpretation.

I realize we didn’t resolve this last year and we’re not likely to this time around, either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

The NFHS has made it abundantly clear that team control only exists on a throw-in for the purpose of fouls and, for all other cases, there is no team control on a throw in.

Yes, the rules are horribly written with respect to that. But, the explanation of those rules when they came out and again in several situations after that specifically say that there is no team control for any other purpose during a throwin.

The most recent time they made that clear was in last year's powerpoint presentation.

You can see it on slide 30 here: https://www.nchsaa.org/sites/default..._Point.CD_.pdf

In it, they say:

▪ The relevance of team control during a throw-in only applies when a member of the throw- in team fouls. Such fouls shall be ruled team control fouls. Team control during a throw-in is NOT intended to be the same as player control/team control inbounds. Team control inbounds is established when a player from either team who has inbound status gains control of the ball. During the throw-in, 10-seconds, 3-seconds, frontcourt status, backcourt status, closely guarded, etc., are NOT factors as there has yet to be player control/team control obtained inbounds.

Subsequent slides further clarify the issue.

They should, however, rewrite the actual rule to say what they mean it to say.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes, the rules are horribly written with respect to that....They should, however, rewrite the actual rule to say what they mean it to say.

Interesting that both sets of NCAA rules are no more clear on this than the NFHS rules. What is the NCAA’s long-standing interpretation on this situation?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The NFHS has made it abundantly clear that team control only exists on a throw-in for the purpose of fouls and, for all other cases, there is no team control on a throw in.

Yes, the rules are horribly written with respect to that. But, the explanation of those rules when they came out and again in several situations after that specifically say that there is no team control for any other purpose during a throwin.

The most recent time they made that clear was in last year's powerpoint presentation.

You can see it on slide 30 here: https://www.nchsaa.org/sites/default..._Point.CD_.pdf

In it, they say:



Subsequent slides further clarify the issue.

They should, however, rewrite the actual rule to say what they mean it to say.

I agree. I looked back in the 2006-07 Rules Fundamentals #2 where it says "Neither a team nor a player is ever in control during a dead ball, or during a jump ball or throw in." So, if this IW following the deflection situation occurred back then it would result in an AP throw in. As Cameron said, the NFHS made it clear the TC aspect on a throw in only pertains to fouls (by the throw in team.) Here in Ohio I remember the OHSAA was emphatic this was exactly how this was to be interpreted. Any other situation that might occur was to be ruled the same as it was before the new TC rule was adopted. Fine if the NCAA wants to interpret differently; but the NFHS has never changed its interpretation to my knowledge.

[BigCat]

You can also look at 4.19.8f. Throwin is released and before it is legally touched a double foul occurs. Ruling. POI. Since Team As throwin “had not ended” the POI is a throwin by team A.
They didn’t say Team A has team control so they get ball back.

Once the throwin ends..inbounds control rules apply. They should put the POE language in the rule instead of making it a POE every two or three years...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Once the throwin ends..inbounds control rules apply. They should put the POE language in the rule instead of making it a POE every two or three years...

Bingo.

[HokiePaul]

I always had assumed that it was the officials who started the clock in college -- I usually see at least 1 officials with his/her hand on the timing pack behind their back to turn it on. I had assumed this was the official start of the clock -- and I also assumed that the whistle automatically stopped it.

Is this correct? If so, then why would the official have been worried about a late start to the clock if he was the one starting it? And if not, what is the official turning on behind their back with the timing pack?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

I always had assumed that it was the officials who started the clock in college -- I usually see at least 1 officials with his/her hand on the timing pack behind their back to turn it on. I had assumed this was the official start of the clock -- and I also assumed that the whistle automatically stopped it.

Is this correct? If so, then why would the official have been worried about a late start to the clock if he was the one starting it? And if not, what is the official turning on behind their back with the timing pack?

I work a few game a year with the PTS, and yes, the officials should have started the clock with their packs.

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If the rule is the same as the NFHS, no one.

According the NCAA Appendix V / Major Rule Differences Pg 116

Team Control Definition
NFHS: Team is in control when a player is in control, when a live ball is passed among teammates, during an interrupted dribble, when the ball is at the disposal of a throwerin.

NCAA: Men - Same as NFHS
Women - Same as NFHS

Loose Ball
NFHS: None

NCAA: Men - When a player holding/dribbling the ball fumbles, a defender bats/deflects the ball out of offensive player’s control or following a try being released.
Women - Same as NFHS