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.