player control/team control
 

Whats the difference between player control and team control?
please e-mail me at [email protected] or answer to this topic.

Player control foul is when the player with the ball commits a foul.

Team control foul is when a team member who happens to be in control (by rule in NF rules) commits a foul.

Peace

thanks for that fast response.
Your buddy Leo
Hardwood Ballers

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.

Also, in HS (and NCAA-W, I think), a player control foul can be called if the player has released the ball on a shot, even though the player is no longer holding the ball.

Where does it say that?

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

This is correct (W-NCAA), if the player has released the ball and has yet to return to the floor and then charges into a defender it is a player/team control 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)

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?

It matters because of the way Juulie defined it.

Do you agree with her?

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?

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!

:)

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

Check out #3:

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

Mathematically incorrect because there is at least one example for which this is not true.

Chuck already posted the exception Dan.

There is no team control in that case. It has already ended.

The exception doesn't make Juulie's original statment any more correct.

And in any event it only applies to 2 of the 3 codes.

So I'll stand behind my original comments, thanks.

Oooo, ok. I guess "subset" is wrong. It's been a while since I did any mathematical theory. But I think everything else I said is right.

Been a bad day all around, eh?

Got the sh!tty end of the Mr Annoying Guy stick...any other bad news come your way today...???

Hmmmm...? Bad news....? Nothing...? Anything come to mind...?

Nothing at all?

http://www.forbiddenplanet.co.uk/images/C/C9170.jpg

Dan, of course you're right and I'm wrong.

Everyone note, this doesnt happen often, so enjoy it while it's here.

Yes, a PC foul is also team control. Generally, it's easier to explain them as if they're separate, although last year's rule change that makes the penalty for TC the same as PC does make the whole thing less complicated.

Now will someone please e-mail me about Chuck's bad news, so I can share in the gloating and teasing? Thanks.

Just so you're in the loop....

<i>Chuckie had a little team
It's socks were a nice bright red
Now our poor Chuckie has just found out
That his little team is dead</i>

I see. cute little rhyme. Are you the one that pays Chuck to deliver the straight lines?!

Puh-leeze.

:rolleyes:

Who cares if you're wrong or how often. It's not like we expect perfection every single post you make and take glee when you're not.

BTW, you need an apostrophe in doesn't.

Don't back down so quickly, Juulie.

For the record, I disagree that a player control foul is a team control foul.

When an airborne shooter commits a player control foul after releasing the ball, there is no team control.

This type of foul does not meet the definition of a team control foul. (4-19-7) Therefore, a PC foul is not a team control foul.

Player control fouls and team control fouls are two different animals and should not be grouped together, even if the penalties are the same.

BTW Dan, "Who cares if you're wrong or how often," is not a statement. It's a question and need a question mark at the end. :)

It doesn't matter, that's not what she said.

Read the definition for TC foul. And you're late with the exception, Nevada mentioned it this afternnon.

How precious.

I've read the definition. "A team-control foul is a common foul committed by a member of the team that has team control." An airborne shooter who has released the ball is no longer in team control. Therefore, this is an instance where a PC foul does not meet the definition of a team control. If one exception exists, then that's all that's needed. A PC foul is not a team control foul.

Juulie wrote, "A team control foul is committed by a member of the team in control, but that player doesn't have player control." That's a true statement.

My apologies to you for not reading NVRef's post first. But he is correct and she's correct. If you disagree, then I'm certain willing to look at an NFHS interp or a case play. Got one?

How precious.

Well let's see, here's what Juulie said:


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.


Here's what the fed said in 05-06, similar to NCAA wording:


A team control foul is a foul committed by a member of the team that has team control.

Not at all the same.

I'll grant you the exception, obviously it's correct under fed rules, but this exception does not exist under ncaa-m rules. But to say PC fouls & TC fouls are 2 seperate animals only means you don't understand the definition of TC fouls.

Anyway, let's see if we can agree to this:

Except for the airborne shooter exception in NFHS and NCAA-W rules all PC fouls are TC fouls.

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.

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.

In English, a player is part of a team.

In basketball, team control foul and player control foul are seperate concepts. While most player control fouls occur while the team has control, they are not team control fouls.

An analogy is the team rebound statistic. While all rebounds are by members of a team, not all rebounds are team rebounds.

I suspect the term was defined to distinguish between types of fouls, not as an umbrella definition. JMO.

If you took away the NFHS airborne shooter exception, there would be no need to have the term "player control foul" in the rule book. The term "team control foul" would cover all situations nicely.

Actually if you changed the wording of 4-19-7 to add the words "or by an airborne shooter" you could eliminate 4-19-6 completely, along with any references.

This thread got so long and convoluted I forgot what the argument was.

Can the OP please start a poll.

Is PC by definition a Team Control foul:

-- Yes :confused:

-- No ;)

-- IDGAF, I just like to see Dan bicker with Tony and Juulie :D

A Haiku for Chuck

Big games this weekend
We'll beat those hated Yankees!
Not enough rain, sigh

And a limerick!

There once was a Sox fan named Chuck
Who's team was in for some luck
They put down their bet
"All 5 games of the set!"
And all they have left is "You suck"

Actually this damn thread is taking time from what I like to do - come here & pester Chuck.

You're in the wrong thread, wiseguy!

I got a promotion from [email protected]!

:D

You'll never make the FED rules committee. Your thinking is too logical.

So we're all blind except you? Gees, that sounds like something...well never mind. Faced with the rule, unable to provide an interp or case play. Is your last name Rutledge? :cool:

No my hardheaded friend, you're the one who refuses to see it. You want to ignore the exception. You want to offer things like "if the fed....." Well, you can't ignore the exception and the Fed hasn't changed anything. It is what it is. If and when they do, people like myself, Jim, Juulie, and others will agree with you. Until then, you're wrong and you'll continue to be wrong.

I'm done.

Keep Up The Good Work Tony!!!!
 

Another display of the Tony thinks his point of view is the only one that matters. Then acts like a little ***** and walks away from the comments when you do not agree with him after he throws out a couple of personal shots. Another great display classless behavior from a guy that needs the internet to show his ability as an official rather than prove it on the court or field.

BTW, this is not the NF board, you cannot do anything to me here. :D

Peace

If that's the best ya got Tony I can see why you're done.

:boring:

LOL! "IF that's the best you got..." That's weak sparky!

What did old Rut boy have to say up there? I've got him on IGNORE. :D

Later DRut! ;) (Hey, DRut is turd spelled backwards!)

He has been done for some time.

Peace

I thought you were done?

Yo-yo much?

There is no way I want to get in the middle of this, but that's funny right there. I don't care who y'are.

Not for nuthin', but how many state finals have you worked, Rut?

Me -- 0
Rut -- 0
Tony -- 2

I'm just saying, seems like he has proved it on the court.

I slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Just saying.....

Btw, Chuckles, you going to that IAABO thingy up in Toronto?

I'm done discussing the point.

But I'm still here to razz your azz! :D

Chuck, you need some perspective.
 

How many State Finals did he work in Illinois? (I think the answer would be zero)

How many Division 1 games has he worked? How many NCAA Tournament games has he worked?

One of the best officials I have ever met and worked with has never worked a HS playoff game EVER. He worked his first NCAA Tournament this past year.

I guess if working a State Final is your only goal in life, you got me there. If I never work a State Final in basketball, it will not be the end of the world if I accomplish many of my other goals.

Peace

You've missed the point and moved the target. You said that Tony should prove how good he is on the court or field, rather than trying to do it on a forum.

One does not get a state final in NC, IL or anywhere without having proved one's ability on the court. He's proved it on the court (and on the gridiron, if I'm not mistaken). The fact that Tony doesn't work D1 or that your friend worked the NCAA Tournament without ever doing a HS state final is irrelevant.

You said Tony should prove his ability on the court, and I was merely pointing out that he has.

Just ignore him Chuck.

Yeah. I leave Sept. 6. I love Toronto.

Share if anything new, exciting or useful comes up.

Wonder if MTD Sr. is going also.....

Chuck,

If Tony is man enough he will defend himself. His discussion with Dan is typical of what he does all the time and all over the internet. Then he has to have his friends step in for him because he cannot be man enough to stand on his own. You once again missed the point and that is why you used State Final accomplishments as your barometer for proving something. I hope I never have to come here and claim how many State Finals I worked as the evidence to what people think of me as an official. Frankly no one outside of my state or the state I accomplish this in is going to care. That was made very clear to me when I went to a couple of D1 camps this summer.

Peace