What's your NFHS ruling, Nevada? Do you agree that this batting equates passing, which equates team control, which results in a violation?

A ball that is batted remains in team control of the team last in control. If team control has not been established yet, a batted ball has no team control. There is no team control on a throw-in. Team control is established when a player gains control of the ball. Batting a ball that is in control of neither team does not establish team control.

Um...you may want to read NFHS case book play 4.12.6 Also see case book play 4.19.7SitC which states that there's no team control following a deflected ball during a throw-in.

You're wrong.

If I bat a ball to a teammate, this doesn't establish team control? A bat is a pass.

And where is "establishing" team control covered in the rule book? It simply states what player control is, and what team control is. I can't find anything that says anything to the effect of "there cannot be team control until there is player control," although it seems logical.

4-12-2 A team is in control of the ball when a player of the team is in control, while a live ball is being passed among teammates and during an interrupted dribble. I read this as meaning if a player passes the ball to a teammate, regardless of what was happening previously, that there is team control.

I could be completely wrong, as I often am on here, but I think the case for team control in this situation is stronger that the case for no team control, by NFHS rules.

I see what you're saying here Jurassic. I mentioned this case play earlier in the thread, but I wasn't thinking it applied to an intentional bat from a player to a teammate. I read the case play as A2 is trying to catch/deflecting the ball, not batting it to a teammate.

But since the case play doesn't specify what type of "touching" is going on, I guess I'll defer.

And to go off-track, doesn't the language of 4.12.6 and 4.19.7.D contradict each other? I remember a thread from not too long ago where Nevada and I think you and others were debating the whole "when does the throw-in end" deal, regarding to the throw-in being touched/deflected. 4.12.6 says the throw-in ended when the player touched the ball, but 4.19.7.D implies that even after the touch, the throw-in is still occuring during the foul that follows the touch.

I've Got It!
 

To use my own logic, touching precedes batting, so the the two case book situations are completely applicable.

Thank you.

If your interpretation were correct, Hawkeye, then there would be team control during a throw-in as soon as the inbounder released the throw-in pass. But that dog don't hunt.

My thought (with regard to NFHS): Play control cannot be established by a bat, so team control cannot be established by a bat. No team control = no backcourt violation.

No there wouldn't, because 4-12-6 says that there's no team control during a throw-in. 4-12-6 is a qualifier for 4-12-2.

My (albeit incorrect) interpretation, cleared up by the two case plays earlier mentioned, was based on the rule set as a whole - I wasn't trying to pick and choose which rules to base it off of from the book.

Why did you bring the book that you know I don't like to be read out of up for?

I know Snaq, and I think you're right. My reasoning around that at the time was that the book doesn't ever say, verbatim, that there must be player control before there can be team control.

Anyhoo, I'm all straight on it now.

Now my brain hurts.

I'm lost. You don't like to be read the NFHS Rule Book?

No. It's improper grammar to end a sentence with a preposition. Rainmaker was just ending a sentence with four of them.