team control and and player controp foul humm

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by blindzebra

That makes a difference how?

If the whistle blows I hope the table is paying attention just like my floor partner.

If I'm saying it's red ball or red 23 is my shooter the scorer should have the answer, no?

Mark does pay attention from the table, but my view while sitting down at halfcourt isn't always the best.

Also, I've noticed at the college level, not too many officials report where the ball is going to be inbounded. They only say whether it's 1 or 2 shots (sometimes the 1-and-1 if they're on the ball), and I've just started getting shooters' numbers this year with the change in the media timeout rule. (And even that's been spotty at best.)

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by blindzebra
If I have a TC/PC I'm giving you the spot of the throw-in. It's whistle, fist, illegal screen...or whatever...red ball here, with a point to the spot, then off to the table.

Mark is speaking from the scorekeeper's point of view, not a floor partner's. [/B][/QUOTE]

That makes a difference how?

If the whistle blows I hope the table is paying attention just like my floor partner.

If I'm saying it's red ball or red 23 is my shooter the scorer should have the answer, no? [/B][/QUOTE]

You said, "...I'm giving you the spot of the throw-in." So you are referring to Mark as a partner. What he said was that you should be sure you report the TC or PC to the table, so he is sure he gets it correct. TC fouls are less common than defensive fouls, so he needs to know for sure that you've got a TC. Just giving the spot doesn't tell him that.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Mark is speaking from the scorekeeper's point of view, not a floor partner's.

That makes a difference how?

If the whistle blows I hope the table is paying attention just like my floor partner.

If I'm saying it's red ball or red 23 is my shooter the scorer should have the answer, no? [/B][/QUOTE]

You said, "...I'm giving you the spot of the throw-in." So you are referring to Mark as a partner. What he said was that you should be sure you report the TC or PC to the table, so he is sure he gets it correct. TC fouls are less common than defensive fouls, so he needs to know for sure that you've got a TC. Just giving the spot doesn't tell him that. [/B][/QUOTE]

Show me where I said I was not going to report it to the table as a TC foul?

From my first post in this thread I've said, "Whistle, fist, what caused the foul, spot and who's ball, to table, white 23 team control foul with hand behind the head, red ball."

This change is not going to cause anywhere near the confusion that is concerning everyone.

Like I said, one foul with an exception, one signal and, just like with everything else, if we do our job correctly there should not be any problems.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by blindzebra

This change is not going to cause anywhere near the confusion that is concerning everyone.

Like I said, one foul with an exception, one signal and, just like with everything else, if we do our job correctly there should not be any problems.

Okay, so now we know your opinion. I'm not nearly as sanguine. we'll see by December how it goes.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Okay, so now we know your opinion. I'm not nearly as sanguine. we'll see by December how it goes.

Juulie, I'm not sure I know what kind of problems you expect but in my experience it's not a big deal with the coaches. Early on you may get some telling you it's 1&1, his team is shooting but a simple reminder - "new rule coach, TC no shots" - is always followed by a quick "oh yeah, right". IMO it's gonna take more effort for the officiating crew to differentiate non-TC situations from from TC situations, especially during shooting/rebounding action.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

By rule a team *is* in control during a throw-in under ncaa. I think we'll see this change in the new fed rules too.

Wanna bet? I say you're both wrong and the team control foul won't apply to throw-ins under the FED interpretation.

[JRutledge]

JERSEYS/PANTS/SKIRTS PROHIBITED FROM BEING REMOVED (3-4-15, 10-3-7h, 10-4-1i): A team member is prohibited from removing his/her jersey and/or pants/skirt within the confines of the playing area. The penalty is a technical foul. The former uniform rule didn’t require team members to actually wear the team uniform. This addition also addresses a growing behavioral concern of players removing their jerseys to demonstrate frustration or anger and as a means of attracting individual attention. The rule is intended to be applied in all situations – even when a player must change uniforms due to blood or other unusual circumstances. It is not unreasonable to expect team members to go to their locker rooms to change their jerseys.

THROW-IN AWARDED TO OPPONENT FOR ALL TEAM-CONTROL FOULS (7-5-5, 4-19-7): A new definition for a team-control foul has been established, and the penalty has been changed to a throw-in in all cases. The ball will be awarded to the offended team at a spot nearest to where the foul occurred. Bonus free throws will no longer be awarded. The change makes enforcement of the rule easier for officials. Under the previous rule it was sometimes difficult to determine whether: (a) a player in control had released the ball on a pass or interrupted dribble before the player charges; and (b) a player had received a pass before the player charges. The change makes the penalty consistent for a player-control foul and a team-control foul. In addition, the change reduces delays in the game. The rule only applies when a foul occurs by the team in control. By rule, there is no team control during a throw-in, jump ball or when the ball is in flight during a try or tap for goal.

PENALTY FOR DOUBLE FOULS CHANGED TO POINT OF INTERRUPTION (7-5-9, 4-36): The penalty for double personal, double technical and simultaneous fouls has been changed from an alternating-possession throw-in to resuming play from the point of interruption. A new definition of “point of interruption” has also been added to the rules book. If the point of interruption cannot be determined e.g., unsuccessful try in flight, the alternating-possession arrow will be used. The committee felt that no team should benefit from a double foul. Under the previous rule, if the alternating-possession arrow favored the defense, the defense would be awarded the ball, benefiting from the foul act. It is hoped that the change will increase the likelihood of double fouls being called when warranted.

LEAVING COURT FOR UNAUTHORIZED REASON CHANGED TO VIOLATION (9-3-2): The rule for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason has been changed from a technical foul to a violation. Leaving the court during the course of play has been increasing with the former penalty of a technical foul not being assessed. Typically, this play is seen when an offensive player goes around a low screen, runs outside the end line and returns on the other side of the court free of their defender. The violation will be called as soon as the player leaves the court. The committee hopes that changing the penalty will increase the likelihood of the infraction being called and eliminate this tremendous advantage.

2005 Basketball Comments


Peace