Backcourt violation?

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Team A has the ball for a throw-in at mid-court. Player bounces the ball to her teammate, who is in the front court. The teammate bats the ball but does not control the ball, which then travels into the backcourt. The player then goes into the backcourt, retrieves and controls the ball while fully in the backcourt.

Violation?

No. In NFHS rules, a ball that is out of bounds has no status. That is why there cannot be a backcourt violation on a throw-in until control is gained and status established.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

No. In NFHS rules, a ball that is out of bounds has no status. That is why there cannot be a backcourt violation on a throw-in until control is gained and status established.

Not the proper terminology, nor is your reasoning correct for this situation in which the ball is tipped or batted by an inbounds player. That inbounds touch does in fact give the ball frontcourt status. The reason that this is not a violation is that team control has not yet been established inbounds. There is only “throw-in team control” that only applies if there is a foul by the throwing team.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The reason that this is not a violation is that team control has not yet been established inbounds. There is only “throw-in team control” that only applies if there is a foul by the throwing team.

This seems to be a really big grey area that the rules committee should address, because you would only know this by going back 6-7 years and finding the note you found in a previous rule book, as you did. The above interpretation is not supported by the current rule book, which is frustrating when working with coaches who actually want to learn and follow the rulebook.

4-12-2 and 4-12-3 establish that team control does exists during a throw-in and that team control "continues until: a. The ball Is In flight during a try or tap for field goal. b. An opponent secures control. c. The ball becomes dead."

Is there a perverse incentive to changing the team control rule so that there is no team control during a throw-in? Or adding a clause to the team control rule or the backcourt rule that states that player control must be established inbounds on a throw-in?

[Raymond]

Case play 9.9.1 Sit. G addresses the team control issue being discussed here.

The verbiage in Rule 4-19-7 eliminates the need for saying there is TC during a throw-in, 4-12-2.d. It defines a TCF to include a foul by the throw-in team at any point before PC is obtained inbounds.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Case play 9.9.1 Sit. G addresses the team control issue being discussed here.

The verbiage in Rule 4-19-7 eliminates the need for saying there is TC during a throw-in, 4-12-2.d. It defines a TCF to include a foul by the throw-in team at any point before PC is obtained inbounds.

Huzzah! Thank you.

How hard would it be to add this line from the case book to the TC rule??

Although there is team control on a throw-in, it only pertains to foul situations

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Huzzah! Thank you.

How hard would it be to add this line from the case book to the TC rule??

All they need to do is eliminate 4.12.2.d, which states there is TC on a throw-in, from the rule book. 4-19-7 already covers a TCF being committed by a team in control of the ball OR by the throw-in team until PC is established on the court.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by fiasco

This seems to be a really big grey area that the rules committee should address, because you would only know this by going back 6-7 years and finding the note you found in a previous rule book, as you did. The above interpretation is not supported by the current rule book, which is frustrating when working with coaches who actually want to learn and follow the rulebook.

4-12-2 and 4-12-3 establish that team control does exists during a throw-in and that team control "continues until: a. The ball Is In flight during a try or tap for field goal. b. An opponent secures control. c. The ball becomes dead."

Is there a perverse incentive to changing the team control rule so that there is no team control during a throw-in? Or adding a clause to the team control rule or the backcourt rule that states that player control must be established inbounds on a throw-in?

We've talked about multiple ways to address this (and the problems with the wording over the years) ever since they added the rule.

Welcome to the party.

[Camron Rust]

I've proposed (last year) a rule change to clean this entire thing up. But, it went nowhere.

My proposal was to change the team control definition to be what it always was...begins when a player inbounds established player control. And then, to get the result they wanted, change the definition of a team control foul to include fouls that occur between the time a throw-in starts and when a team established team control.

This would have been the easy way to do it. We already do that with the player control foul on an airborne shooter who no longer has player control. That would have been the least confusing way to have done this.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

No. In NFHS rules, a ball that is out of bounds has no status. That is why there cannot be a backcourt violation on a throw-in until control is gained and status established.

Frontcourt/Backcourt status is obtained the instant the ball is touched. Control is not necessary.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I've proposed (last year) a rule change to clean this entire thing up. But, it went nowhere.

My proposal was to change the team control definition to be what it always was...begins when a player inbounds established player control. And then, to get the result they wanted, change the definition of a team control foul to include fouls that occur between the time a throw-in starts and when a team established team control.

This would have been the easy way to do it. We already do that with the player control foul on an airborne shooter who no longer has player control. That would have been the least confusing way to have done this.

You desired definition of TCF is already in 4-19-7. If they remove "d" from 4-12-2, it would eliminate any further confusion.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

You desired definition of TCF is already in 4-19-7. If they remove "d" from 4-12-2, it would eliminate any further confusion.

I think that would leave it ambiguous still and people would still mess it up. I think 4-19-7 would need to be reworded to make it clear that you could have a team control foul without team control. As worded, I don't think it would be good enough.