BktBallRef was right!! (Sorry, Nevada)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The above quote was cut and pasted from the original thread. It was from Tony. Ask him if he was serious.

I can't believe he was serious either then.

Simply holding the ball does not equate to team control ever. A player can stand at the scorers table at half time holding on to the game ball. That doesn't mean that his team now has control and the other team is on defense.

If there's no team control, there's no defender.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

A player can stand at the scorers table at half time holding on to the game ball. That doesn't mean that his team now has control and the other team is on defense.

Or...a player can take his favorite game ball to bed with him during nap time and rub it up against his face along with his favorite blankie. Believe me, if he does that, he's definitely not in control.

Damn - I've got to find those meds.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Or...a player can take his favorite game ball to bed with him during nap time and rub it up against his face along with his favorite blankie. Believe me, if he does that, he's definitely not in control.

In that case he might need a defender....a public defender.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I can't believe he was serious either then.

Simply holding the ball does not equate to team control ever. A player can stand at the scorers table at half time holding on to the game ball. That doesn't mean that his team now has control and the other team is on defense.

This is exactly right except under ncaa rules for throw in.

If there's no team control, there's no defender.

Well, here it gets trickier. Certainly for the purposes of time out only "the offense" can be granted a time out during a throw in. So thinking in terms of offense/defense helps for at least this situation. Not sure it helps elsewhere though, not worth bothering with IMO

But I agree with your over-all message.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Well, here it gets trickier. Certainly for the purposes of time out only "the offense" can be granted a time out during a throw in. So thinking in terms of offense/defense helps for at least this situation. Not sure it helps elsewhere though, not worth bothering with IMO

Good point. But.....that's why I think that they wrote the TO rule as only to be granted when the ball is in control of or at the disposal of his/her team. The thrower has the ball at his disposal, without control(using rules semantics for the definition of control).

To be quite honest, I really don't know what difference all this verbiage makes anyway. We're still gonna call the play the way the rules lay it out, and the way that the rules lay it out, it don't make no nevermind who is called the defender on this particular play. It's a violation no matter which of the 10 players does it.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Good point. But.....that's why I think that they wrote the TO rule as only to be granted when the ball is in control of or at the disposal of his/her team. The thrower has the ball at his disposal, without control(using rules semantics for the definition of control).

To be quite honest, I really don't know what difference all this verbiage makes anyway. We're still gonna call the play the way the rules lay it out, and the way that the rules lay it out, it don't make no nevermind who is called the defender on this particular play. It's a violation no matter which of the 10 players does it.

Agree on both of your points...it's just more navel gazing from the navel gazing committee.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Agree on both of your points...it's just more navel gazing from the navel gazing committee.

Sounds like a clear case of apples and oranges.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Sounds like a clear case of apples and oranges.

Shut up.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Sounds like a clear case of apples and oranges.

You got me.

And I was focussed on not spelling it naval...

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

You got me.

And I was focussed on not spelling it naval...

No problem, glad to help.

Now I'm going to go back to my corner and shut up, like I was told.

[Kelvin green]

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

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Good point. But.....that's why I think that they wrote the TO rule as only to be granted when the ball is in control of or at the disposal of his/her team. The thrower has the ball at his disposal, without control(using rules semantics for the definition of control).

Hold the phone on this one. After a made basket, the team that just scored can call a timeout before the new offensive team or player control gets the ball. So, for this brief period, you can call a timeout when there is no player or team control.

Fed. really makes this complicated when there is no TC on a throw-in, however, once the ball is placed at the disaposal of the thrower-in, the opponents can not be granted a timeout, even though your arguement is there is no team control, no offense, no defense on a throw-in.

These are all good points though JR. Continue on, I'll hang up now.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Old School

After a made basket, the team that just scored can call a timeout before the new offensive team or player control gets the ball.

TEAMS CANNOT CALL TIMEOUTS!!!!!

Any other rules you don't know? Oh wait - don't list them because there is only so much bandwidth in the universe.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

TEAMS CANNOT CALL TIMEOUTS!!!!!

Any other rules you don't know? Oh wait - don't list them because there is only so much bandwidth in the universe.

Mark, set away from the keyboard, put your hands up in the air. Just step away from the keyboard, it's going to be alright, I promise you the sun will come up tomorrow and we will get you a public defender when we get your a$$ behind bars and away from that keyboard.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Old School

Mark, set away from the keyboard, put your hands up in the air. Just step away from the keyboard, it's going to be alright, I promise you the sun will come up tomorrow and we will get you a public defender when we get your a$$ behind bars and away from that keyboard.

Mark's point is simple. Only the officials can "call" a timeout. They do so only after the team "requests" it. Common usage doesn't differentiate between "request" and "call" when it comes a timeout, and it may seem like an exercise in silly semantics, but the rules make a distinction for a reason.