BktBallRef was right!! (Sorry, Nevada)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The only simple term left dangling is when a defender stops being a defender.
On this deflected throw-in, is B1 still considered a defender or not?

How can there be a "defender" when neither team had established themselves as the offensive team?

When airborne A2 grabbed the deflected throw-in, that's when team A established player and team control, and that's also when team A became the offensive team and team B became the defensive team. Iow, deciding when or if B1 becomes a defender doesn't enter at all into the final call; it's simply not relevant when B1 becomes a defender. The only pertinent fact needed is that after gaining control, A2 did not meet the requirements of the exception listed in 9-9-3 and committed a violation.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

When airborne A2 grabbed the deflected throw-in, that's when team A established player and team control, and that's also when team A became the offensive team and team B became the defensive team.

I don't have any answers about this question, but the statement above seems to me to be a stretch, at best. The team with the ball would seem to me to be on offense, even if the person with the ball is an inbounder. The other team is clearly trying to defend, especially when the throw-in is near the inbounding team's goal.

For the purposes of this case play, I honestly don't know what the NFHS has in mind about when B1 becomes a defender. But in real life on the court, it just seems pretty obvious to me that the throw-in team is on offense and the other team is on defense. It just seems silly to say that they're not on defense until somebody from the throw-in team controls the ball inbounds.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I don't have any answers about this question, but the statement above seems to me to be a stretch, at best. The team with the ball would seem to me to be on offense, even if the person with the ball is an inbounder. The other team is clearly trying to defend, especially when the throw-in is near the inbounding team's goal.

If you look at some different rules, you'll see that on throw-ins the FED consistently uses the verbiage "opponent of the thrower" instead of "defender". See 7-6-4, 9-2-10&PENALTIES. I believe that it does so that it's rules language will fall in place with the definitions of "control" in R4-12. Iow, it doesn't look like a stretch to me; it's looks perfectly logical to me from a rules perspective. If there is no player or team control, there is no offense or defense.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If you look at some different rules, you'll see that on throw-ins the FED consistently uses the verbiage "opponent of the thrower" instead of "defender". See 7-6-4, 9-2-10&PENALTIES. I believe that it does so that it's rules language will fall in place with the definitions of "control" in R4-12. Iow, it doesn't look like a stretch to me; it's looks perfectly logical to me from a rules perspective. If there is no player or team control, there is no offense or defense.

I agree with what you say, but it's also inconsistent with the reason for the exceptions. In general terms, if a team can reasonably be expected to be responsible for the location of the ball, then they are responsible for a BC violation. If not, then they are given some leeway in the BC rules.

So, I'd say it's "consistent" for B2 to be able to grab a tipped inbounds pass in the air and land in the BC without causing a violation.

Of course, I'd say that *either team* should be able to recover an errant shot in the air without causing a BC violation as well (but that's not the rule).

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I agree with what you say, but it's also inconsistent with the reason for the exceptions. In general terms, if a team can reasonably be expected to be responsible for the location of the ball, then they are responsible for a BC violation. If not, then they are given some leeway in the BC rules.

So, I'd say it's "consistent" for B2 to be able to grab a tipped inbounds pass in the air and land in the BC without causing a violation.

Of course, I'd say that *either team* should be able to recover an errant shot in the air without causing a BC violation as well (but that's not the rule).

I agree that B2 grabbing a tipped in-bounds pass should logically be allowed the same exemption as if the throw-in was not tipped. Note though that any player of team A would also be called for a violation if they caught a tipped throw-in in mid-air going from their frontcourt to backcourt. That was my point re: there not really being an offense or defense until someone established player control. R9-9-3 is consistent in that it was simply written without regard to an "offensive player" or a "defender". It applies to any player on the court.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

How can there be a "defender" when neither team had established themselves as the offensive team?

When airborne A2 grabbed the deflected throw-in, that's when team A established player and team control, and that's also when team A became the offensive team and team B became the defensive team.

Read the rule. "...the team not in control..." The rule says nothing about team control. On a throw-in, the thrower has control of the ball. The statement in the rule book has nothing to do with team or player control at this point. If I'm the thrower, I have control. If you are my opponent, you are a defender.

[Mark Dexter]

We may be the only people who debate what the rule used to be after it's been changed.

[Nevadaref]

Just so that we don't lose sight of the crux of the debate in this thread, here are two plays in which an official needs to know if B2 should be classified as a "defensive player" and thus would be granted "the defensive exception" to the backcourt violation.

1) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their backcourt (Team B’s frontcourt).
A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from his frontcourt, catches the ball in the air, and lands in his backcourt.

2) A1 steals the ball from B1 and races down the court on a fast break. A1 attempts a lay-up, but B1 who is running hard while trailing the play is able to catch-up and block the try for goal. The ball rebounds hard off the backboard and bounces out to the division line. B2 jumps from his frontcourt, catches the ball while in the air, and lands in his backcourt.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Just so that we don't lose sight of the crux of the debate in this thread, here are two plays in which an official needs to know if B2 should be classified as a "defensive player" and thus would be granted "the defensive exception" to the backcourt violation.

1) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their backcourt (Team B’s frontcourt).
A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from his frontcourt, catches the ball in the air, and lands in his backcourt.

2) A1 steals the ball from B1 and races down the court on a fast break. A1 attempts a lay-up, but B1 who is running hard while trailing the play is able to catch-up and block the try for goal. The ball rebounds hard off the backboard and bounces out to the division line. B2 jumps from his frontcourt, catches the ball while in the air, and lands in his backcourt.

The crux of the debate on play #1 was settled when the new case play was issued. Play #2 was always straightforward.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

2) A1 steals the ball from B1 and races down the court on a fast break. A1 attempts a lay-up, but B1 who is running hard while trailing the play is able to catch-up and block the try for goal. The ball rebounds hard off the backboard and bounces out to the division line. B2 jumps from his frontcourt, catches the ball while in the air, and lands in his backcourt.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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 NO 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 confreres can cite some rules 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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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 NO 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 confreres can cite some rules 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.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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 NO offense or defense.

...

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 confreres can cite some rules 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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Read the rule. "...the team not in control..." The rule says nothing about team control. On a throw-in, the thrower has control of the ball. The statement in the rule book has nothing to do with team or player control at this point. If I'm the thrower, I have control. If you are my opponent, you are a defender.

Rule 4-12-6--"Neither team control nor player control exists during a ....throw-in...."

If a teammate committed a foul before the throw-in ended, would you really call that foul a team control foul?

[just another ref]

Read the rule. "...the team not in control..." The rule says nothing about team control. On a throw-in, the thrower has control of the ball. The statement in the rule book has nothing to do with team or player control at this point. If I'm the thrower, I have control. If you are my opponent, you are a defender.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Rule 4-12-6--"Neither player or team control exists during a dead ball throw-in...."

If a teammate committed a foul before the throw-in ended, would you really call that foul a team control foul?

We're not talking about team control. We are talking about one team being in control, thus making a player on the other team a defender.