Team control throwin. Foul purposes only

[Raymond]

It's just such a poorly written rule. You are correct in pointing out that a throw-in ends when it touches anybody inbounds. And if team control exists for the purposes of the throw-in only, they have not clearly defined what the status of the ball is once it touches or deflects off an offensive player.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

It's just such a poorly written rule.

Changing team control from only inbounds to also include out of bounds during a throwin, coupled with the exception for backcourt violations during a throwin, has to be the biggest fiasco ever by the NFHS. If not ever, than certainly during the forty years that I've been officiating.

I think that it's a good rule change, I get it, but the NFHS has had trouble putting in writing, with at least two Points of Emphasis, and several annual interpretations, that still don't do a great job of fully explaining the rule, and that's topped off with the cherry of not putting it permanently into the actual rule book for everyone, especially rookies, to see every year.

These Points of Emphasis and annual interpretations are simply "patches" and aren't really permanent fixes.

Stupid NFHS.

Why not make the throwin team control legal for everything (say that the thrower has player control) with no exception for backcourt? Throwins from a frontcourt sideline or endline can only be legally passed into the frontcourt. Many ignorant fans already think that that's the actual rule.

[Nevadaref]

Billy, look at the definition of team control foul. What you seek is included there.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Raymond

It's just such a poorly written rule. You are correct in pointing out that a throw-in ends when it touches anybody inbounds. And if team control exists for the purposes of the throw-in only, they have not clearly defined what the status of the ball is once it touches or deflects off an offensive player.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Billy, look at the definition of team control foul. What you seek is included there.

This is the rule to which I was directing Billy. It covers the gap noted by Billy from the time that an inbounds player touches the throw-in pass, yet does not control the ball. This rule clarifies precisely what Raymond says is not clearly definded by the NFHS.

NFHS 4-19-7: "...A team-control foul is a common foul committed by a member of the team that has team control or by a member of the throw-in team from the start of the throw-in until player control is obtained inbounds."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

NFHS 4-19-7: "...A team-control foul is a common foul committed by a member of the team that has team control or by a member of the throw-in team from the start of the throw-in until player control is obtained inbounds."

Nice.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Why not make the throwin team control legal for everything (say that the thrower has player control) with no exception for backcourt? Throwins from a frontcourt sideline or endline can only be legally passed into the frontcourt. Many ignorant fans already think that that's the actual rule.

It could be a lot easier than that, and without unintended consequences. We already have a "player control foul" when there is a foul by an airborne shooter who doesn't actually have player control. Something similar could also be done for team control fouls.

In fact, we really have no need to the distinction between player control fouls and team control fouls and haven't had since they changed the penalty for team control fouls to be the same as player control fouls so many years ago. Instead, eliminate the definitions of both team control foul and player control foul and create a new foul type called "offensive" foul. You'd keep the definitions of team control and player control because they have other implications. Just change the foul definition.

I propose something like this:

"Offensive" fouls would apply when:

• the team has the ball at their disposal
• the ball is in flight during a throw-in
• the ball has been thrown until either team gains control
• team control exists
• a airborne shooter commits a foul

Where the penalty for an "offensive" foul would be not shots and possession to the offended team as is currently done for both the player control and team control fouls.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It could be a lot easier than that, and without unintended consequences. We already have a "player control foul" when there is a foul by an airborne shooter who doesn't actually have player control. Something similar could also be done for team control fouls.

In fact, we really have no need to the distinction between player control fouls and team control fouls and haven't had since they changed the penalty for team control fouls to be the same as player control fouls so many years ago. Instead, eliminate the definitions of both team control foul and player control foul and create a new foul type called "offensive" foul. You'd keep the definitions of team control and player control because they have other implications. Just change the foul definition.

I propose something like this:

"Offensive" fouls would apply when:

• the team has the ball at their disposal
• the ball is in flight during a throw-in
• the ball has been thrown until either team gains control
• team control exists
• a airborne shooter commits a foul

Where the penalty for an "offensive" foul would be not shots and possession to the offended team as is currently done for both the player control and team control fouls.

I agree. The distinction between player and team control fouls is a distinction without a difference, because the penalties for both types of fouls are identical (loss of possession). The "loose-ball foul" category may fall under team control fouls (because there is no player control while the ball is loose), but some codes have distinct provisions to address those fouls (NCAAM treats loose-ball fouls as regular fouls for purposes of the bonus, and NBA has its own penalties for loose-ball fouls committed before the offended team is in the bonus, otherwise loose-ball fouls follow normal bonus rules).

Ball at disposal = control anyway, because once the ball is at a teams disposal, only that team may request and be granted timeout (for a live-ball timeout request to be honored, it must come from the team in control of the ball + player control, if the ball is inbounds).

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It could be a lot easier than that, and without unintended consequences. We already have a "player control foul" when there is a foul by an airborne shooter who doesn't actually have player control. Something similar could also be done for team control fouls.

In fact, we really have no need to the distinction between player control fouls and team control fouls and haven't had since they changed the penalty for team control fouls to be the same as player control fouls so many years ago. Instead, eliminate the definitions of both team control foul and player control foul and create a new foul type called "offensive" foul. You'd keep the definitions of team control and player control because they have other implications. Just change the foul definition.

I propose something like this:

"Offensive" fouls would apply when:

• the team has the ball at their disposal
• the ball is in flight during a throw-in
• the ball has been thrown until either team gains control
• team control exists
• a airborne shooter commits a foul

Where the penalty for an "offensive" foul would be not shots and possession to the offended team as is currently done for both the player control and team control fouls.

So, if a try or tap by Team A is in flight when a personal foul is called on any Team A player, this would be considered an "offensive" foul?

[Zoochy]

SITUATION 7: A1, in the team’s frontcourt, passes towards A2, also in the team’s frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A’s backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A’s frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A’s backcourt, but never having touched in Team A’s backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A’s backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1, 4-4-3, 9-9-1)

Please remember that this interp has been changed (2 years ago?). It is no longer a Back Court violation

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by Raymond

It's just such a poorly written rule. You are correct in pointing out that a throw-in ends when it touches anybody inbounds. And if team control exists for the purposes of the throw-in only, they have not clearly defined what the status of the ball is once it touches or deflects off an offensive player.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

So my question is... what happens when a throw-in is touched (as mentioned by Raymond) but before anybody secures control of the ball, the official sounds an inadvertent whistle?
Is Team A in control of the ball? What would have the ruling been before 2011?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

So my question is... what happens when a throw-in is touched (as mentioned by Raymond) but before anybody secures control of the ball, the official sounds an inadvertent whistle?

Is Team A in control of the ball? What would have the ruling been before 2011?

Maybe that's the part of the rule that I was thinking about when I commented earlier. I can't access the rules online right now and I'm not going to dig up last season's high school rule book anytime soon (I didn't work any high school games last year because I got injured in a college game for the high school season started).

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

... what happens when a throw-in is touched but before anybody secures control of the ball, the official sounds an inadvertent whistle? Is Team A in control of the ball?

Yes.

4-12-2: A team is in control of the ball:
a. When a player of the team is in control.
b. While a live ball is being passed among teammates.
c. During an interrupted dribble.
d. When a player of the team has disposal of the ball for a throw-in.

4-12-3: Team control continues until:
a. The ball is in flight during a try or tap for goal.
b. An opponent secures control.
c. The ball becomes dead.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Yes.



4-12-2: A team is in control of the ball:

a. When a player of the team is in control.

b. While a live ball is being passed among teammates.

c. During an interrupted dribble.

d. When a player of the team has disposal of the ball for a throw-in.



4-12-3: Team control continues until:

a. The ball is in flight during a try or tap for goal.

b. An opponent secures control.

c. The ball becomes dead.

Sounds like normal team control to me. I thought team control was only for purposes of a foul during a throw-in?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

It sounds like we are jumbling up multiple things into this conversation. Isn't this about how to apply team control for foul purposes? The rule on that is very clear. How we adjudicate some violations with team control can be another issue all together. Maybe I just have not read everything in detail, but it sounds like there are things being discussed that have nothing to do with fouls.

Peace

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

So my question is... what happens when a throw-in is touched (as mentioned by Raymond) but before anybody secures control of the ball, the official sounds an inadvertent whistle?
Is Team A in control of the ball? What would have the ruling been before 2011?

The previous rule read: "Neither a team nor any player is ever in control during a dead ball, or during a jump ball or throw-in or when the ball is in flight during a try for goal. In your question, the touching ends the throw-in but neither team has control. The inadvertent whistle would result in an AP throw-in. If the IW occurred prior to touching, the throw-in would not have ended and the point of interruption would be a new throw-in for Team A. Keep in mind the new rule in my opinion does nothing to change that since team control by the throw-in team specifically applies only to a foul committed by the throw in team. We were emphatically told that all previous rulings on throw-in situations remain the same.