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

[Nevadaref]

Crosscountry55 makes an excellent point. Under the POI rule in NFHS this is either a part 1 situation with team control or a part 3 situation without control by either team. The definition of TC in the current rules book would lead one to put it in under part 1, while the language of the numerous and recent POEs on TC would place it in part 3.
I agree that the NFHS needs to fix this situation and update the rules book with language that states what is desired.

[bob jenkins]

We've all said that from the very beginning. Heck, if you can have PC fouls without PC, then you could have TC fouls without TC -- just change the foul definition to include "from the time a throw-in starts until PC is obtained inbounds". No need to change the TC definition.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

We've all said that from the very beginning. Heck, if you can have PC fouls without PC, then you could have TC fouls without TC -- just change the foul definition to include "from the time a throw-in starts until PC is obtained inbounds". No need to change the TC definition.

That is what the team control foul rule says.4-19-7. In looking at player/team control rule...the only portion that mentions throw in is 4-12-2D. “Team is in control when ball at disposal of player during a throwin.” It doesn’t say team is in control during the entire throwin. It sets a specific limit on it. 4-12-2A says “Team is in control when player is in control.” That language is broad enough to cover the situation in D but if NFHS meant for it to..there’d be no need for D. I think they need to explain in 4-12 that most of its language deals with inbounds situation. Also that there is no team control once ball is released on throwin. I think folks look at 4-12-2A, the rules about how TC ends and the TC foul language and conclude team control continues after release of throw in.
Other option is go to college as cross country says. (I have a headache now)

[bucky]

Good post 30 Nevada as well as followup from crosscountry.

Some other cases got me thinking too:

Case 4.19.7 SIT D. It is mostly the same play (deflected throw-in) except after the deflection, there is an offensive or more specifically, a TC foul. The case explains that Team A was in control during the throw-in and therefore it is a TC foul. Notice the word "during." even though throw-in ended. For some reason, rule 4-12-6 is cited.

Also, case 4.19.8 SIT F gives more info. Ball released on a throw-in by Team A and there is a double foul. Since the throw-in had not ended, POI is throw-in by Team A. Here, the NFHS clearly points out that the throw-in had not ended and thus, Team A gets another throw-in and they cite 4-36-2b.

Yes, they involve fouls, not IWs. They use words however that get the brain spinning. NFHS needs to be clearer for sure.