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.