You could leave team control out of it entirely....no need to say there is team control at all.

Just like the "player control foul" says it applies to airborne shooters even though there is no "player control", you could simply say "team control fouls" apply to throwins even though there is no "team control".

They could even create a new type of foul that would apply to "offensive" players when there is no team control. It would apply to airborne shooters and throwing team players on throwins until team control is secured.

Bigfoot ...
 

The mythical, infamous "offensive foul".

Often talked about by television commentators but never actually observed, kind of like Bigfoot, but even more elusive.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.-...=0&w=325&h=163

Yes, create a throw-in foul category and revert to the old NFHS team control rule.

The jump ball before a player gains control.

Apologies if anyone addressed this aspect of his claims already, but I didn't see it in the thread.

With the shot clock, team control begins once a team has possession of the ball (or is entitled to possession by having the ball at its disposal). Since a team has control of the ball either inbounds or at its disposal, there is no reason to artificially create 2 different types of team control as NFHS rules mistakenly did. Because a team would already have control.once it has (or is entitled to) possession, and the shot clock is reset to its full value, having a shot clock would ease administration of the backcourt count rule, since team control.would not change unless player control.changes on the court or a shot is released, keeping in line with the normal interpretation of player control.

If the shot clock does not emerge, I would support creating a throw-in foul category as an exception to the bonus rules, so that there are not 2 different types of team control.

Shot clock still has NOTHING to do with all of those things. You could have all of those things simply by stating team control exists for all purposes when the throwin begins. They don't want that. Adding a shot clock to make those things happen is entirely unnecessary. They could make those things happen without a shot clock...and probably more easily than adding a shot clock.

You're making it a lot more complicated than it needs to be....the only wanted a way to have no FTs for fouls that occur during throw-in activity.

Not sure this would be a good rule. If I understand the idea correctly, this would enable the team that is behind to commit offensive fouls immediately after the release of each of their shot attempts causing the clock to stop while the try is still airborne, the attempt still counts if it goes, the opposing team would get no free throws just like the player control foul even though there is no player control. Plus the opponents would likely have an end line throw in allowing the team that is behind to set up their press.

Either adopt a throw-in foul as a special category, so that the opponents of the team throwing the ball in do not shoot free throws, or have team control be consistent across all purposes (fouls AND violations). The artificial separation of team control on throw-ins for the purpose of fouls, but not for other purposes, has created controversy and confusion among officials where before there was none.

This is not even that complicated. The rule is poorly written for the technical crowd, but it is clear what the rule is there to do. It has nothing to do with violations anyway.

Peace

I agree. I was not intending to comment on tries being in the air. Team control would still end on the release of a try. I only intended to talk about the way to cover the game from when the throwin is over (ball touched) until team control is secured.

Yet, several times a year, it needs to be explained to someone. Thus, it is a problem and should be cleaned up.

I do not disagree with it being cleaned up. But we also have people that try to turn the discussion into something it should not be or try to make more out of the confusion. The bottom line, the throw-in Team Control portion of the rule is only about a foul situation, not a violation restriction. Many rules like this have multiple elements to them, so this is not new. And people in those cases also have to have those things explained to them as well, that does not mean we need an entire rules change to make it more understood. This rule needs a wording correction most of all.

Peace