NFHS
I wonder will the player control foul signal now change and the new signal for player control and team control foul be the one used by college officals...
Stew in VA
CVBOA

I wouldn't think so. Let's remember that the airborne shooter rule hasn't changed. It is not the same as the NCAA rule. Therefore, the hand behind the head will continue to indicate a PC foul, which would mean the a shot by the airborne shooter could not score.

Isn't more likely that they will include an airborne shooter as an exception to a team control foul?

You wave off a made basket anyway on a PC on an airborne shooter, don't you?;)

I think we will go behind the head on all TC fouls, including fouls by airborne shooters.

I bet we don't. I'll bet that the mechanic won't change.

But if the penalty is the same as a PC foul, why cloud the issue with two seperate signals?

It comes down to just waving off a shot on an airborne shooter, because after release there is no team control foul anyway.

This is a great bet. Put some moulah on it guys!

I agree, there really is no need for a change anyways.

I'd Like to see the change--- the NCAA mechanic is strong and clear. No big deal to wipe the shot for a shooter....
prediction-- no change for 2 years...... study it....
change in 2007
Stew in VA
cvboa

The NCAA uses the same signal for both PC and team control foul. The rules and application are basically the same. It is possible that they would change the signal. It is an outside shot and I seriously doubt it (I think it would have been in the changes if they did change the mechanic). We will just have to see.

Peace

I don't understand this whole thread. :confused: Why would the PC signal change? A PC foul is still a PC foul.

Is the question whether they'll add a TC signal or use the existing PC signal for the TC, too? If that's what we're asking, I would guess they'll use the PC signal for both.

I agree. I think they will use the PC mechanic for both.

My point exactly.

I've seen a preview of the new mechanic. It will be the same for a PC foul and all other TC fouls. It is like this:

You put your right foot in
You put your right foot out
You put your right foot in
And you call the TC foul

OK, it doesn't exactly rhyme, but you try coming up with something when you've taken the wrong meds.

Depends on which college officials you mean. The NCAAM mechanics are different from the NCAAW mechanics.

But each set uses only one signal (hand behind the head for men, fist "punch" for women) for both the PC and TC foul, right?

Per rulebook, yes.

Yes. It still doesn't make it "THE ONE used by college officials" as stated in the first question. That's all I meant.

My guess is one signal and that one signal will be the NCAAW's signal.

The point is that the NCAA uses only one signal. When you work on the Women's side there is only one signal. If you work on the Men's side there is only one signal. Why would the NF do anything different?

I do not see the NF using the Women's signal, mainly because that would require a change. I think the NF will keep the signal they currently use for PC fouls which is consistent with the Men's game. Why would they change that?

Peace

Does it really matter? Most guys don't go behind the head anymore. They simply point in the opposite direction.

That might be true in some areas. That is not true where I live. It is very rare to see someone not go behind their back with their arm. The ones that do not it is clear they are mainly college officials.

Peace

I'd be shocked if the FED went to the NCAAW "punch", b/c it's a pro mechanic. I can't imagine that they will adopt the pro mechanic.

My money is on no TC foul signal at all. We'll simply signal a hold, push, whatever and "going that way."

My rationale: The NFHS is pretty reluctant to make changes to the signal chart. How long did it take them to add the kick signal? And it was really, really obvious and widespread. So in a few years, if we've all settled on a mechanic, they'll adopt it. Here my money is on one fist in the air, other arm pointing "that way."

There was no change announced for the signal chart. That's hardly conclusive, but they announced the kick when they blessed it. They were pretty detailed in this year's announcement, citing exactly what would change.

There are 13 types of fouls listed in 4-19, the TC will make 14. Only four have specific signals: intentional, technical, player control and double. No signal is the stronger precident. For my money, the flagrant is more in need of its own signal than the TC.

It would only make since that they have some kind of signal for a team control foul. You will not shoot FTs, so there has to be something used to clarify when that is taking place. I just think they will make it easier this coming year and use the current PC signal. If there is not a signal, then coaches will think these fouls could be result in bonus FTs.

Peace

I presume that we would still shoot FT's for a foul (if it's #7+ for team A) on the rebound where A1 is "on the back", since team control has ended. Am I correct to presume?

oh no
 

Chris, I am not sure you are aware of what you have just done, but rest assured someone will be along soon to explain....but I am with you the foul where team control has ended will be administered the same as in the past....

My "bet" is based entirely on extrapolating from what I have seen so far. I admit that it's just guesswork.

Actually, I believe there ought to be a signal for the TC foul. But I don't think it ought to be the PC signal.

The existing PC signal clearly communicates some very specific information: the ball handler committed a foul, the basket cannot count, there will be no bonus shots, and we're going the other way. That meaning is deeply engrained in our culture.

If we use the same signal for the new TC foul, everybody has to unlearn half of what the signal means. It is no longer clear who the foul is on or if the basket will count. On some plays, this may lead to significant confusion.

Like any new rule, it will take time for everybody involved to understand it. However, the TC rule change is very simple, much simpler than the old rule. We only shoot bonus foul shots when the defense fouls. Period. There really is nothing to clarify with regards to bonus free throws.

We still have the PC foul signal to indicate when the ballhandler fouls and the basket cannot count. But for TC fouls, I would like to see a different signal. I believe the fist and the point are pretty clear.

You are right; a rebounding foul will not apply. This is just for fouls by a team that is in control of the ball (by rule) and a team that is in the process of throwing in the ball (by rule a team is not in team control, but for the sake of this rule it is expanded to this case).

Peace

Re: oh no
 

That's why I said "on the back" referring to the contact on the back. I know it's a push, it's just a shorter wat af stating and everyone understands that contact occured.

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.

The only difference between the team control and PC foul is the TC does not have to be committed by the player with the ball.

A basket cannot count under EITHER foul, because an airborne shooter foul will still be in the rule, and if the try is released you don't have a TC foul if another A player fouls.

The penalty is the same so the signal will be the same, they won't NEED to change the signal chart.

Am I the only one that waves off the basket on a PC by an airborne shooter?:rolleyes:

Back In The Saddle,

Why do you need another signal when the result is going to be the same? What difference does it make if you have a foul on the player with the ball or the screener? You are going to do the same thing either way. You will not shoot FTs.

Peace

BZ, maybe I'm not getting this but the way I read it I think you're not right here.

TC ends on the shot, a TC foul cannot occur after a shot is released. The goal would count, you then shoot bonus if it applies. If the airborn shooter is the fouler then there's no basket and no bonus under fed if they leave that alone.

BTW, I bet they'll go to the ncaam signal (hand behind the head) but they need another signal for the flop. The official makes a loud "Oafff!" and jumps backwards landing on his can. :D

edit :scratches head: I just read it again & I think we are saying the same thing...but we still need the signal for the flop.


[Edited by Dan_ref on May 2nd, 2005 at 02:36 PM]

If you have a TC foul you cannot have a made basket...see continuous motion, the ball becomes dead up til the point of release.

If the try is released there is no TC foul, it's a regular old foul with FTs if the bonus is in effect.

A PC and TC foul are now the same, with the exception of a foul by an airborne shooter.

Really easy.

You can't have a made basket if the hand goes behind the head. One foul, with an exception, and one signal.;)

I for one would love to have an approved signal for the flop. The eyeroll, head shake, palm up knee to elbow get up signal would do nicely.

Yeah, we're saying the same thing I just misread what you had.

We already have a signal for that. That would be a Technical foul. :D

Peace

This is what I love about this forum. I can come here and friendly people point out the error of my ways. That saves me going out on the floor and having unfriendly people do it :D

Go figure that instaed of confusing the definitions with player control and team control we'd just rewrite it and call it an "offensive foul" Oh whoops cant do that NBA did that to make some common sense, and they still wrote it in that a player cant score while foul.


I will throw my two cents in. The current PC foul signal will be when there is an Team Control foul (offensive foul)

... What we have to remeber is that it is not a Team Control foul once the ball is in flight or gets knocked away from the defense. The area of difficulty we will have under the current rule change is the Team control foul when the ball is loose. Was it during an interrupetd dribble? was it a fumbled pass, was it oh well you can see where this is going. The NBA made this simple by creating the loose ball fooul and stating that once defense deflects it away ball is loose.

Ther will be some "loose plays" now in federation where the defense will be penalized more than the offense while they are both going after a ball.

How so?

If there is team control, by rule, during this loose ball it does not matter if the ball is loose. If the defense fouls and the bonus is in effect we shoot in either case.

I like the idea of an offensive foul...that pop you hear is MTD's head exploding...but I don't think we need to add a section to the rules about loose ball fouls.

Changing to no shots on team control creates the penalty for the defense, no foul shots, a loose ball doesn't.

Yeah, but then what we'd have to do is change the basic definition of team control. And I don't think too many people really want to do that. In the NBA, team control ends with the defensive deflection, and that's obviously not the rule in NCAA. So you'd have to re-write one of the basic rules of the game. I don't think you're going to see much support for that any time soon. JMO.

Let's take it this way, Team A has a ball and Team B bats it away (Team A still has Team control because Team B does not have control) ball rolls down the floor batted by 2 more players and A and B jump for it. A1 pushes B1, by rule this will be a team control foul- heck this may be now in the old backcourt... We call Team control...

I would rather see a loose ball foul here but as Chuck menions it would take a little bit of a rewrite

I'm jumping in a little late here, but I agree with BITS that we need two separate signals, one for the PC and one for the rest of the TC players. I agree that if we call a foul off ball, and use the PC signal, there will be too much confusion. People are accustomed to seeing that signal as meaning the ball handler. I think we need to add the punch for the off ball offensive foul.

Trust me on this one. It is not going to be a problem. It is not a problem at the college level. It will not be a problem at the HS level. College uses one signal at both levels at it is never a problem.

Peace

Juulie there won't be two seperate types of fouls it will be one. You will have TC with an exception that includes an airborne shooter.

One foul, one signal, no confusion.;)

you and Jeff must work with a lot smarter parents, players and coaches than I do. I foresee nothing but trouble if there's only one signal.

They already ask about why aren't we shooting 1 and 1 on a PC foul now.:D

Whistle, fist, vocalize whatever like illegal screen, go to table, "White 23 team control foul(with hand behind head), red ball."

What's the problem?

If there is a second signal, you think that is gonna not confuse them? The smarter ones are going to know we don't shoot with the hand behind the head signal.;)

BZ, I'm not trying to be funny, is there someplace in the book that says we are supposed to report a team control foul to the table?

This is one area where I'm wrong because I don't even use the signal with my hand behind my head. I just use my voice with a point for an offensive foul. I know it is wrong but I haven't got dinged for it yet by an evaluator.

It seems like many things trickle down from the NCAA so I don't think the NF will add another signal for TC.

<b>All</b> fouls have to be reported to the table.

NFHS rule 2-9-1--"The official shall designate the offender to the scorer....".

Hmmmm I never knew that! :D

I mean go to the table and say "black, 21 team control foul" instead of "black, 21, holding."

I will assume a smiley face on your post JR. :)

Tommy's question is "Are we supposed to signal a TC foul at the table?" And I think the answer is yes. I think the NCAA didn't do a good job of laying down the exact mechanics when they introduced the TC foul, but oh well. I think that you give the TC signal, just like you would if it were a PC. When you report a PC, you don't give the "charge" (push) signal at the table; you put your hand behind your head. Same thing with the TC. I think.

I think maybe- just maybe- I read your original post wrong, Tom.

Change that "maybe" to "surely". :D

Honestly Juulie, I do not care if these people are confused. As BZ said, they want shots on PC fouls a lot of the time already. I have even had coaches say, "The basket has to count the foul was after the release." So if they cannot get the current rule right now, what makes you think another signal is going to change things with the new rule?

Peace

My question was about what is verbalized at the table but the signal at the table is a question mark too. I have not been giving a team control signal at the table or verbalizing team control. If the foul is a hold on the offense I will verbalize this at the table, or an illegal screen for an illegal screen, etc.

I think the NCAA should/could do a better job of specifying some things. One play I especially don't like is a defender knocking the ball away, their momentum causeing them to take one step out of bounds and they come directly back in to get the ball for an open layup. I hope I explained that clearly but it is a violation. I don't think that is the same thing as a shooter purposely going out of bounds to use a double-screen so they can get a wide open shot. Maybe for different thread but something I don't like.

Table reporting.
 

I really do not see the big deal here on what you say at the table. You either report what you have normally, then say "team control foul." Or you say, "Team control foul," then report what kind of foul took place. Either way, I think it is essential that you report to someone that you have a team control foul. Especially if you could have a rebounding foul that might require bonus shots. It really does not matter what sequence you use, just say the words somewhere.

Peace

Re: Table reporting.
 

This is why I asked the question. I do NOT think it should be reported as a team foul. I think that will be followed by "what did he do" from the coach even though communicating to the coach is not a concern. I do not report it as a team foul and (knock on wood) it has never been a problem. I originally wanted to know if it is written down somewhere that we are required to report it. If not, I will continue to leave that part off at the table. By this time coaches seem to understand that they will not get to shoot free throws if the other team had control. At least they understand it where I work.

Re: Re: Table reporting.
 

Signal 24 of the NCAA rules has the hand behind the head for both PC and TC fouls (men). Women has the fist/punch in the direction the ball is going.

Seems to me the signal is there for a reason.:D

For me communication is the key. If you are vocalizing at the spot of the foul about the specific act that caused the foul...hold, grab, push, illegal screen, hook, clear out, etc...you will have fewer questions as to why when you give the PC/TC signal at the table.

You are probably doing 3 whistle anyway, so you will be going tableside if more clarification is needed.

Re: Re: Re: Table reporting.
 

But make sure you give the PC/TC signal at the table! I hate thinking we're in 1-and-1 because the ref signals a hold (particularly when it's close on team control/no team control) and I have to either repeatedly ask if it was team control or signal 1-and-1 to be waved off like an idiot.

Mark, your partners aren't being really helpful then. If I call a hold foul at the spot and give you that spot you will probably know that it was TC. I do not report these fouls as TC to the table and I can't remember any of my partners doing it either. An evaluator hasn't said anything about it to me or any one I've worked with. I know my mechanics aren't really by the book but I think I do a pretty good job of communicating what I have. I think we all deviate in some area. :D

Re: Re: Re: Re: Table reporting.
 

Again communication and game awareness should fix that.

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.

If it's not a TC/PC, I have whistle, fist, whatever the foul is, and red 23 is my shooter, then off to the table.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Table reporting.
 

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Table reporting.
 

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?:D

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Table reporting.
 

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

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.)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Table reporting.
 

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?:D [/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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Table reporting.
 

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?:D [/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.;)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Table reporting.
 

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Table reporting.
 

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.

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

New Rule Comments
 

<b>JERSEYS/PANTS/SKIRTS PROHIBITED FROM BEING REMOVED (3-4-15, 10-3-7h, 10-4-1i):</b> 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.

<b>THROW-IN AWARDED TO OPPONENT FOR ALL TEAM-CONTROL FOULS (7-5-5, 4-19-7):</b> 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.

<b>PENALTY FOR DOUBLE FOULS CHANGED TO POINT OF INTERRUPTION (7-5-9, 4-36):</b> 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.

<b>LEAVING COURT FOR UNAUTHORIZED REASON CHANGED TO VIOLATION (9-3-2):</b> 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