player control/team control

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Just to be very clear.

A player control foul is a foul committed by the person who has player control. A team control is committed by a member of the team in control, but that player doesn't have player control.

Where does it say that?

IOW...a player ctl foul is a team ctl foul.

[RonRef]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Where does it say that?

IOW...a player ctl foul is a team ctl foul.

Basketball
NFHS
Casebook
Rule 4
4.23.2 Guarding Position


SITUATION: B1 jumps in front of dribbler A1 and obtains a legal guarding position with both feet touching the court and facing A1. Dribbler A1 contacts B1's torso.
RULING: Player control foul on A1. (4-7-2)

Basketball
NFHS
Casebook
Rule 4
4.12.1-B Player and / or Team Control


*SITUATION: A1 is dribbling in A's backcourt when the ball accidentally strikes his / her ankle and bounces away. During the interrupted dribble, A1 fouls B1 in attempting to continue the dribble.
RULING: A team-control foul is charged to A1. It is not a player control foul as the contact occurred during an interrupted dribble. (4-19-7)

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by RonRef

Basketball
NFHS
Casebook
Rule 4
4.23.2 Guarding Position


SITUATION: B1 jumps in front of dribbler A1 and obtains a legal guarding position with both feet touching the court and facing A1. Dribbler A1 contacts B1's torso.
RULING: Player control foul on A1. (4-7-2)

Basketball
NFHS
Casebook
Rule 4
4.12.1-B Player and / or Team Control


*SITUATION: A1 is dribbling in A's backcourt when the ball accidentally strikes his / her ankle and bounces away. During the interrupted dribble, A1 fouls B1 in attempting to continue the dribble.
RULING: A team-control foul is charged to A1. It is not a player control foul as the contact occurred during an interrupted dribble. (4-19-7)

Soooo....I see where it says a team ctl foul might be a PC foul. I don't see where it says a PC fouls is NOT a TC foul, which is what I questioned from Juulie's original post.

By looking at the definition (NFHS & NCAA) I don't see how a PC foul is not a TC foul.

[RonRef]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Soooo....I see where it says a team ctl foul might be a PC foul. I don't see where it says a PC fouls is NOT a TC foul, which is what I questioned from Juulie's original post.

By looking at the definition (NFHS & NCAA) I don't see how a PC foul is not a TC foul.

Since we don't shoot the bonus on either a player of team control foul why does it really matter?

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by RonRef

Since we don't shoot the bonus on either a player of team control foul why does it really matter?

It matters because of the way Juulie defined it.

Do you agree with her?

[ChuckElias]

Ron, I think you're missing Dan's point. Juulie's post indicated that a team control foul has two conditions: 1) it is a foul by a player whose team is in control AND (2) the player who commits the foul does not have player control.

Dan's point is that the second part of that explanation is incorrect. The player MAY not have the ball; but there is still team control even if s/he does have player control. So a foul by the player in control of the ball is still a team foul, even tho it is also a player control foul. Therefore, a player control foul is a subset of team control fouls.

Both your citations are correct, but miss Dan's point.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Ron, I think you're missing Dan's point. Juulie's post indicated that a team control foul has two conditions: 1) it is a foul by a player whose team is in control AND (2) the player who commits the foul does not have player control.

Dan's point is that the second part of that explanation is incorrect. The player MAY not have the ball; but there is still team control even if s/he does have player control. So a foul by the player in control of the ball is still a team foul, even tho it is also a player control foul. Therefore, a player control foul is a subset of team control fouls.

Both your citations are correct, but miss Dan's point.

Speaking of being missed...we miss you in the baseball thread.

You coming back any time soon?

[ChuckElias]

I guess Dan can handle his own defense. I chimed in a little too late.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

I guess Dan can handle his own defense. I chimed in a little too late.

Yeah, we're both wasting time here.

Why don't we wander over to the baseball thread, I'll buy you a diet coke!

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Why don't we wander over to the baseball thread, I'll buy you a diet coke!

It's pathetic. I don't want to talk about it. Come to 5-Star instead and I'll buy you a Diet Coke.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

It's pathetic. I don't want to talk about it. Come to 5-Star instead and I'll buy you a Diet Coke.

Check out #3:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pathetic

[BktBallRef]

Sorry, I disagree. Yes, I understand the definition very well and no, PC fouls are not TC fouls. If a PC foul was a TC foul, then the Fed would have listed them together under the same article and listed the exception. They didn't. If a PC foul was a TC foul, then it would meet the definition with the exception noted. It isn't. It's no different than a double foul being a different animal than a false double foul or a multiple foul being different than a false multiple foul. It's a separate situation and it calls for a separate definition.

I realize that team control can exist during a PC foul and that the penalty is the same. But it is not a TC foul by definition. Get them to change the working of the articles/rule and I there. Until then, no.

BTW, I couldn't care less what the NCAA men or women's rule is. I can accept, "Except for the airborne shooter exception, PC fouls are have similiar characteristics as TC fouls."

But they are not TC fouls.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I realize that team control can exist during a PC foul and that the penalty is the same. But it is not a TC foul by definition. Get them to change the working of the articles/rule and I there. Until then, no.

Well no, that's what you don't understand, apparently.

They are *exactly* the same by the wording of the definition, minus the exception. And the exception (airborne shooter) is consistent with the given definition without explanation. If the PC is by an airborne shooter then by definition under the fed it is not a TC - no team ctl. If the PC is by the player in control of the ball then by definition we have a TC - team ctl. By definition that's all that matters, did the fouling team have ctl of the ball. If the fed decided to remove the airborne shooter exception (make it the same as those rules you don't care about) then the definition of TC would remain exactly as is. It's all in there, it's all consistent, you just don't want to see it.

No biggie.