I believe these 2 principles:

1. You cannot establish team control without player control AFTER a throwin

2. Team control is established when the ball is caught AFTER a throwin.

My question is WHERE exactly in the rulebook does it state this? Everybody I've asked about this, refers to 4.12.2. That rules refers to player control but it also refers to "live ball being passed between teammates". When you look at the defintition of a PASS, it uses the word "BAT".

Anyway, to make a long story shorter:

A1 passes to A2 who is standing in frontcourt
A2 BATS the ball to A3 standing in the backcourt
A2 is batting (passing) the ball to his teammate
If A2 is passing, he has established team control
If you have team control then you have a backcourt play.

Normal ruling on this play is based on that A2 never had player control so it would not be a backcourt violation. But, if team control could be established because of a pass (not bat) then this would be a backcourt violation. Which, takes me back to my original 2 questions.

If in your judgement, A2 had sufficient control of the ball to bat it accurately to A3, to say it was in his control then it would be a back-court violation.

A bat (or tap) is NEVER control...no matter the accuracy. Control is holding or dribbling.

Camron,

Correct for player control. How about team control?

Player control in the front court is not needed for a backcourt violation. Once team control is established, the ball only needs to gain front court status by touching either the court or a player in the front court. Team control is established as you say it is, however, it doesn't end until either team B gains team control or Team A attempts a try at goal. Therefore, when A2 bats the ball in the front court, the ball gains front court status and team A still has team control.
IOW, to address your individual points.
A1 establishes team control when he holds it. He loses player control, but team control continues throughout this entire play.
This is a backcourt violation regardless of whether A2 has player control.

Correct me if I am wrong but if A1 is the thrower in there is no team control. Therefore, there is no backcourt violation.

This sounds roughly reminiscent of a religious credo. I wonder if we can get Juulie and revref to write us up a basketball officials' credo.

"I believe in the jump ball, not just to start the game, but for all held ball situations.

I believe in calling the intentional foul at the end of games.

I believe in beltless pants, black-and-white striped shirts, and contact lenses instead of glasses. . ."

Chuck,

You are one of the people that I thought might give this THEORY some serious consideration. Hope you will wade thru their logic.

I had asked them for rule support for their logic and when they presented it, I could not refute it using rule support.

Team control
 

I'm just thinking out loud here...

What happens in this scenario to A's team control if B1, in A's frontcourt, taps the ball back into A's backcourt and A1 retrieves the ball?

If B hasn't established player control, he batted the ball, and B hasn't established Team control, no prior player control, then A didn't loose Team control and the ball gained front court status. By the def's given above why would A not be penalized for a backcourt violation?

ronny,
Is A1 in bounds or is A1 throwing the ball in from out of bounds? If he's in bounds, then he has established team control, which continues as I mentioned previously, per 4-12-3.
If A1 is throwing it in and A2 merely bats the ball, I've got no violation.

Re: Team control
 

B was the last to touch it in the frontcourt so no violation. If B batted it off A's leg then it would be a backcourt violation.

Re: Team control
 

Steve,
Per rule 9-9-1, team A must be the last to touch it in the fc, and the first to touch it after going to the bc, for it to be a violation. In your sitch, B is the last to touch it before going into the backcourt, thus giving A the opportunity to recover in the backcourt.

Adam

Oh, ok, ok. Just so you know, I did try to respond to your emails, but for some reason, my server encountered problems with your address or Rich's, so I couldn't write back.

The real question, if I'm reading correctly is: Can team control be established by batting the ball to a teammate, even if player control has not been established yet?

That's the question, right?

The reason the question is even remotely plausible is that part of the definition of team control includes the phrase "and while the ball is being passed among teammates" (or something very similar).

Part of the definition of pass states that a pass can be a bat.

So. . .

1. A1 is attempting to inbound the ball (no team control).
2. A1 throws the ball in to A2.
3. A2 cannot secure player control, but bats the ball to A3.
4. By definition, this bat is a pass.
5. The pass is between teammates.
6. By definition, team control exists during a pass between teammates.
7. Therefore, team control exists, even though player control was never established.


It seems completely reasonable, and yet completely false. I honestly don't know of a reference that definitively states that player control must be established before team control; I think it's just assumed that everybody realizes it.

The definitions of control simply say that a player is established when a player is holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds and that team control exists in those other situations. I'd like it a lot better if it said that team control continues during passing, etc. . . b/c then we could infer that it had to exist before the passing in order to continue during the passing.

But it doesn't say that. So I don't really know what to say about the argument. I think the only thing to say is that the spirit and intent of the control rules is pretty clearly that you have to have player control in order to establish team control. Unfortunately, I can't think of a rule that actually states that.