I didn't fail to see your argument. I just can't believe that anyone is actually still arguing since that case play came out.

Unbelievable.

You want to have a "defensive" player when there is <b>NO</b> offense or defense.

Feel free to argue this further. It's a complete waste of time, but go ahead. I'll leave it to you.

I know that Nevada won't call his state rules interpreter to get his take because his opinion is worth more than the interpreter's rulings, but I recommend others reading this thread to do just that.

Rule citation, please.

NFHS rule 4-12 and case book play 4.12COMMENT, as previously cited numerous times.Read 4-12-6 and follow that up by reading 4-12-1&2.

Now you try citing something that will back up your claim.

Sorry, I do not have my rule book in front of me but.... if you look at "Free Throws" it states that a defensive player has to occupy the 1st lane space. And a defensive player is a player on the team that does not have "Team Control".
Now most of this problem could go away if there is "Team Control" during the Throw-in (Like NCAA). Right?:rolleyes:

Not a valid point, Zooch. During a FT, the shooter establishes player and team control for his team when he receives the ball. When he shoots it, that player and team control ends. Are you really trying to say that there is a defensive team during a FT or a rebound? If so, read case book play 4.12.2.

Funny how extending team control to a throwin would have truncated this whole discussion about 5 pages earlier.

I don't like it as a rule change, though. It alters one of the fundamentals of basketball. No team control during a throw-in. You can still have the team control foul during the throw-in (just like a player control foul after release of a try), but I don't like messing with the real basics of the rules. (Obviously, the NCAA didn't consult me, though. :) )

I don't know. Without extending team control, you're going to bring up more questions, such as, "is it a team control foul if the foul occurs after the ball has been tipped but before control is secured?"

Why is that in question?

We know when team control begins on a throw-in.

I'm saying "if" team control fouls are extended to throwins, but the defiinition of team control is not extended to throwins. You'll have that brief period between when the throwin ends (tipped or deflected pass) and the ball is secured where you could not call a TC foul.

I see.

That is how it first got worded in the ncaa rules btw...team control on throw-in...if a tip then NO team control and no TC foul...then team control again when a player takes possession of the ball. That lasted 1 year. Rule now is team A retains control until team B gains control.

And that sure makes it simple, doesn't it. Don't need no 8 pages of arguing about the way it's handled in NCAA...

According to jar <i>et al</i>, it must be. If a member of the throwing team commits a foul on a throw-in <b>after</b> the ball is tipped in-bounds but <b>before</b> player and team control is established, it still has to be a team control foul because the opponents of the throwing team are <b>"defensive players"</b>.

I wanna be there when they explain their call.

I don't think anyone has suggested that having a team on defense has anything to do with team control. You're really stretching your arguments on this one.

I wrote this play many posts ago to test when we should consider someone to be a defensive player.

JR seems to be saying that if there is no team control, then there is no defense. Is that your stance, JR?

If so, in the above play as soon as A1 releases the try for goal team control ends and you wouldn't consider B1 who blocks the shot a defensive player, right?
(I happen to disagree as B1 is clearly undertaking a defensive action by striving to block the shot.)

If that is the case, then you obviously wouldn't consider any of the shotblocker's teammates to be defensive players as they attempted to track down the ball. Thus you wouldn't grant B2 an exception to the backcourt violation.

There ya go, Camron. That's what you and Nevada are agreeing with. Team A is on offense. Team B is on defense. If team A commits a foul while they are on offense and team B is on defense, that foul had better be an PC or TC foul. Iow that also means that if you going to give B2 a "defensive player" exemption up until the time that he grabs the ball, then any personal foul that's called on one of B2's opponent during that time has to be a <b>team control</b> foul.

Great logic......and good luck to y'all.

JR, in short, NO.

At this time it is unclear if the NFHS links the concepts of offense and defense with that of team control and hence team control fouls.

I won't be calling any team control or player control fouls when team control doesn't exist. Stop being silly.

I've got a new test play for everyone.

A1 has the ball with in his backcourt near the division line with only seven seconds left in the quarter. B1 is directly guarding A1. Due to the short amount of time remaining A1 elects to try for goal. After the ball is released by A1 and in flight, B1 jumps from his frontcourt and deflects the shot up into the air. B1 now lands in his frontcourt and jumps again. This time while in the air he catches the ball and then lands in his backcourt with three seconds showing on the clock.

Backcourt violation or defensive player exception? Obviously team control ended when A1 released the try for goal.

How in the world do you go from 1 and 2 to 3?!?! :confused:

You are arguing that the simple fact that there is a defensive team MUST mean that the other team has team control. Nevada and JAR simply deny that premise.

Camron is correct; your logic is flawed in this particular case.

As soon as B1 blocked the ball, the shot ended, and as well player and team control by team A also ended at the same time. During the rebound, the ball is not in player or team control of either team. If you think differently, read case book play 4.12.2. Iow, until someone re-establishes player and team control, there is <b>NO</b> offense or defense. Because the exemptions that apply in rule 9-9-23 are only for defensive players, throw-ins and jump balls, they are NOT applicable in the case described above. That's why it's a violation.

You're basing your premises on there being defensive players when neither team has player or team control. Cool! Why can't both teams all be defensive then? That's just as logical as what you're trying to say.

If you or any of your <i>confreres</i> can cite some <b>rules</b> why that isn't a violation, please feel free to do so. Rules....not something written on a tablet and brought down from the mount by Nevadaref.

Cool. Then you're saying that jar's play is legal also? And if not, why not?

No. I'm saying your argument against JAR and Nevada_ref is not a good one.

Yet more semantics, even less worthy as a male body fluid than Meisterbrau after a hard day of commercial fishing.

I'm beyond caring what jar & nevada have to say about this...in your view of the world who is on defense when no team has control?

I'm kinda hoping you'll say neither.

It's not semantics. It's deduction. I consider it to be critically important, even if you don't recognize it.

As I said earlier in this thread, I honestly don't know if the NFHS has a considered answer to this question or not. In a real world sense, however, it seems pretty obvious to me that the team with the ball for the throw-in is on offense.

Nope, we're arguing the meaning of the word defense.

As some people much smarter than I (but not you maybe) have already noted semantics is the study of meaning. Obvious from fan's perspective.

How about from a rules perspective?

(What I mean to say is how do you view offense & defense from the perspective of a rules expert? Don't give me the common man's view, I can call my 77 year old aunt and get that. I want your view as a rules expert.)

Since you want to cite rules, your first sentence is WRONG!
You know better too. Team and player control don't end "as soon as B1 blocked the ball," instead they both end when the ball is in flight after being released by A1 on the try. That's what it says in 4-12-3(a).

Now as for the real debate, yes, I am basing my argument on it being possible, but not necessary, for there to be defensive players when neither team has team control. You are basing yours on the belief that there cannot be defensive players unless one team has team control. We disagree.

BTW you still haven't answered my question about whether you consider B1, the shotblocker, a defensive player after A1 releases the try for goal.
There is no team control at this time, but he certainly looks like he's playing defense to me. ;)

Sooooo...........you're saying my argument is wrong, but the way that jar, Camron and Junior want to call the play is also wrong under current NFHS rules. Correct, weaselboy?

Or are you saying that you agree that there is no violation in the play that jar outlined?

And my only point in the post you quoted was that Jurassic was arguing badly. I was not discussing offense or defense or semantics. I get it, I understand the discussion. I was making a different point.

As I've already said twice, I honestly don't know what the NFHS rulemakers intend in this regard. I think Bktballref's view is probably correct, but I think there are legitimate points on both sides.

You want citations, here are citations:

Rules Fundamental #7: The only infractions for which points are awarded are goaltending by the defense...

Explain me that! How can the defense commit goaltending at all if there is no defense after the shot is released????


Rule 4-23...Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.

Are you saying you can't "guard" the team with the ball during a throwin? Are you saying that since you can't guard, you can't have LGP, and therefore the non-throwing team simply can't ever have a postion which would allow them to draw a charging foul (not a PC, just a common charging foul) against the throwing team? Are you saying that the team without the ball must continue to get out of the throwing team's way until someone catches the ball?

Rule 8-4-a During a free throw....Marked lane spaces may be occupied by a maximum of four defensive and two offensive players.

After the FT is released, is it still during a FT? If so, those players are still offensive and defensive players. Or are you saying they must magically evaporate from the lane between the release and when the FT ends since only 4 defensive and 2 offensive players are allowed to be there?

Even if it is not explicity spelled out in the book, these three citations demonstrate that a team can be considered to be on defense even when the other team doesn't have team control.

No, not correct. Holy crap, how can such a simple point be so misunderstood?!?!?! :mad: All I was saying was that these two sentences:

1. Team A is on offense.
2. Team B is on defense.

do not entail the following sentence:

3. If team A commits a foul while they are on offense and team B is on defense, that foul had better be an PC or TC foul.

That's it! You seemed to say that if you believe #1 and #2 (which JAR does) then you HAVE to accept #3, and that's simply false. That was my point.

I'm not talking AT ALL about the play JAR outlined. I didn't even read the play that JAR outlined. I'm talking solely about the deduction involved in sentences 1-3.

Good night. I'm done with this thread. It's not worth the freakin' headache. :(

OK. Now what difference does that make anyway re: the final call? It really don't make no nevermind when player and team control ended. The only <b>fact</b> needed to make the final call that is relevant is that player and team control did end.

Cite some rules to back up your argument that a violation does not occur on the play you posted.

If there is no player or team control, there are <b>NO</b> defenders until someone re-establishes player and team control. Is that statement plain enough for you.

To my dearly beloved friend, Scrappy......

After you return from wherever you go when you're pouting, would you please answer the following question?

If a throw-in by A1 is tipped by a player(defensive, offensive--I really don't care what you call them), and a B player then gains possession of the tipped ball while in mid-air after jumping from his frontcourt, is it a violation for that B player to land in the back court holding the ball? Iow, do you agree or disagree that the above play of jar's is not a backcourt violation?

That's all I want to know.

Camron, Junior....please put on the record also whether you think that this is a violation or not.

It does if you accept the meaning of offense as the team in conrol of the ball and defense as the other team (we can agree there are only 2 teams, correct? I mean...in you opinion as an expert.)

See...it's all about meaning. That's as clear as Meisterbrau or Pabst.

All right Camron! I busted my butt looking for something, ANYTHING, no matter how obscure which made this point. This is undeniable proof that the bookwriters do at some point consider defense to still be defense when there is no team control by the opponent.

No violation. Team B is not responsible for the location of the ball if it is from A's throwin. Until team B gains possession, they remain on defense and have the expception at their favor.

To further illustrate that point...Ball inbounds in A1's hands. B1 deflects A1's pass to A2. B2 catches the ball in the air having jumped from the frontcourt and lands in the backcourt. Violation. No. Reason: B remains on defense until they have possession of the ball either through a steal/turnover/violation/foul by A.

A greater responsibility is placed on team A since they're controlling where the ball is thrown. Team B can only react to where team A throws the ball and should not be put in jeopardy of a violation in order to gain possession of the ball. That intent was made clear when the exceptions were first instituted.

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...mages/clap.gif and http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...outhankyou.gif

I especially like Fundamental #7. That conclusively proves that there can be a defensive player during a time of no team control. Very nice point. :D

I already have. Way back in post #16 I wrote:

The terms could be defined as the team with the ball and the team without the ball. Or the team with the ball and the team trying to get the ball away from that other team.

It's amazing that we are spending so much time arguing about what is DEFENSE! :D

I agree.

And, to define "defense" , I think you need to define "offense". I'd define it as "(a) The team with team control of the ball. This team remains on offense until team control is lost. -OR- (b) The team with teh ball at their disposal. This team remains on offense until either team gains Team Control of the ball."

If one team is on Offense, the other is on Defense. If neither team is on Offense (during a Jump Ball or a Try, for example), then neither Team is on Defense

Soooooo......putting aside the semantics issue.....in your opinion, is that play described previously a violation or not?

Soooooo......what does "semantics" mean again? Why don't we ask this gal?

http://mssamantics.us/haiku/antics-logo.gif

I thought that was answwered by "I agree". If the play at hand is "A1 has a throw in. The pass is tipped and B2 jumps from B's front court, controls the ball in the air and lands in B's backcourt" then, no, I don't have a violation.

I don't think the new case proves that it's illegal, and I can't point to a specific case that proves that it's legal. shrug.

Frankly, I can't believe the thread is 140 posts long. I can believe there's disagreement, I don't know why there's no A2D.

OK. A2D. We're going in circles anyway.

OK bob, you've got me. What's A2D?
:confused:

I say it's "Agree To Disagree".

JR or Nevada will be along soon (and often) to claim that it's something else. ;)

I looked, but I can't find "agree" defined anywhere in the rule book.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Zoochy
OK bob, you've got me. What's A2D?
:confused:
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Answer to Dat :D

It's more basic than that.

Look under rule 4 for the definition of "to"...aint there my friend, aint there.

What about "is"?

-- Willie from Arkansas

with my popcorn bowl empty I ask,
Do we agree the 9-9-3 give a defensive exception to an offensive player?:D

Upon further reflection, it means "Argue To Death"

I have read and actually reread this thread three times and my head hurts.

I believe that the rule as rewritten added a bunch of ambigutity to this mess.

Here's my conclusion, the rule writers screwed up. They tried to list exceptions by making parenthetical statements and they missed the point. There used to be three clear exceptions. They just muddied the waters..

if you look at the rule without the parentheical defensive player, or throw-in, or jump call) the whole rule makes more sense!

From the rule book" A player from the team not in control may legally jump from his/her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt."

1) since there is no team control on a thow-in,( I am not worried about who is offensive or defensive player here!) a player can catch the ball from front court and land back court. The new case book play just clarifies that on the throw-in, the exception ends when the throw-in ends. Makes sense since this is supposed to be throw-in exception. What we have to remember is that control is esatblished when the ball is caught!

I believe this created an unintended extrapolation that might allow the Team B (read this defensive player) to catch a deflected ball on a throwin from his front court and land back court and it be a violation I dont think that the NFHS wanted us to penalize a "defensive team" but it does make a consistent scenario

Ball is now in play and there is no team controlBY either team, regular backcourt rules apply. If the team control is now established in FC and ball goes BC and team is first to touch it, it is a BC violation.

just like any other loose ball play where there is no control and a team secures control with both feet off theground. (read that the long shot scenario)

2) The jump ball exception is a no brainer

3) the normal defensive exception is no brainer, defense is not in control by definition.

4) If the parenthticals are considered conclusive and defining, then on a loose ball after a shot if a player jumps from their backcourt, secures the ball and goes backcourt then it is a violation.

Personally, I would just as soon see the parentheticals removed and just let any team when the ball is not in control of either team catch the ball with both feet off the floor and let them come down. I really think it would be more consistent across the board. But I will have to wait for that one

Kelvin, that's what I said last year in our thread on this. :)

I will add that the moment to assess whether or not there is a team in control is just prior to when the player jumps. In other words if his team is not in control when he left the floor, then he should not be penalized for a backcourt violation, if he caught the ball while airborne and then landed.

That is what I had contended. It is clearly NOT what the NFHS was thinking as we can see from the new casebook play. Oh well...:(

Definitive Ruling!
 

From the NFHS website....2007-08 rules interpretations.

<b><u>Situation #9:</u></b> Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team's frontcourt(team B's backcourt). A1's throw-in is deflected by B1, who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from his/her backcourt and catches the ball in the air. B1 lands with the first foot in the frontcourt and and the second foot in the backcourt.
<b><u>RULING:</u></b> Backcourt <b><font color = red>violation</font></b> on team B. The throw-in ends with the deflection(legal touch) by B1. B2 gains possession/control and first lands in team B's frontcourt and then steps in team B's backcourt. The provision for making a normal landing only applies to the exception on a throw-in and <font color = red><b>a defensive player</b></font> and is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball. (9-9-1;9-9-3)

'Nuff said.

Are you sure about that?

All this says talks about is the provision for a normal landing (with one foot in the FC followed by one in the backcourt). It says nothing about who is on defense nor the play where B2 lands entirely in the backcourt. It merely says the normal landing provision only applys to the first player to touch the ball on a throwin. I doesn't say anything about whether that player is on defense or not.

This does not satisfy your previously established measure of definitive.

:D <i></i>