Throw-in, Double Foul

[jritchie]

This is exactly the reason nfhs should change the rule to match the college level ruling where there is team control when OOB. This would clear up so much of the confusion. This play is messed up all of the time because of the confusion! We just talked about it on sunday in our meeting and it was told that "no team control on the throw in, if you have a double foul during it, go to the arrow!" So now we will have to go back and touch on that play again!

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by jritchie

This is exactly the reason nfhs should change the rule to match the college level ruling where there is team control when OOB.

This is a terrible reason to change the team control rules. It's really just not that difficult. During a throw-in, resume with a throw-in. After the throw-in ends, then you have to determine if there's control.

Changing one the most basic definitions of the game is a bad idea. We shouldn't be messing with our basic definitions and the "Basketball Fundamentals" because of one play that happens once a season.

We just talked about it on sunday in our meeting and it was told that "no team control on the throw in, if you have a double foul during it, go to the arrow!"

This is exactly the reason your board needs a new interpreter.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Changing one the most basic definitions of the game is a bad idea. We shouldn't be messing with our basic definitions and the "Basketball Fundamentals" because of one play that happens once a season.

How can you call this one of the fundamentals of basketball and a basic definition of the game if the college level considers it part of the game?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Smitty

How can you call this one of the fundamentals of basketball and a basic definition of the game if the college level considers it part of the game?

Because it's listed right in your NFHS rulebook as Basketball Fundamental #2.

It's my personal opinion that the NCAA acted too quickly because they wanted to include throw-in fouls as team control fouls. (Which is not the worst idea ever. I don't think it's completely necessary, but I can see the reason for wanting it.) The easiest way to do that seemed to be to have team control during throw-ins. So that's what they did. Of course, they then had to make lots of other changes (like to the backcourt rule), that made it not really so easy, after all.

A better way to accomplish what they wanted to do would have been simply to change the definition of team control fouls to include throw-in fouls. Just like for a PC foul after the ball has been released. Is there really player control? No. But we still consider it to be a player control foul. I think this would've been a better solution to the team control foul issue.

But nobody asked me. :shrug:

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

A better way to accomplish what they wanted to do would have been simply to change the definition of team control fouls to include throw-in fouls.

And what a throw-in foul should be? Until the end of the throw-in? Certainly not, because the ball could be only deflected. So?

Of course in FIBA rules there's team control during a throw-in (and you can't pass in the backcourt if the throw-in is in the frontcourt).

Ciao

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

And what a throw-in foul should be? Until the end of the throw-in? Certainly not, because the ball could be only deflected. So?

Excellent question, but it has a very easy solution. I never meant to invent a new class of fouls called "throw-in fouls". You'd have to say that a team control foul occurs when a member of the throw-in team commits a common foul during the throw-in and until the ball is controlled inbounds.

[jritchie]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This is a terrible reason to change the team control rules. It's really just not that difficult. During a throw-in, resume with a throw-in. After the throw-in ends, then you have to determine if there's control.

Changing one the most basic definitions of the game is a bad idea. We shouldn't be messing with our basic definitions and the "Basketball Fundamentals" because of one play that happens once a season.

MUST NOT BE TO BAD OF A CHANGE IF THE NCAA THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA!



[/QUOTE]This is exactly the reason your board needs a new interpreter. [/QUOTE]


I surely wouldn't argue with that one! New Assignor this year, going to be fun!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Excellent question, but it has a very easy solution. I never meant to invent a new class of fouls called "throw-in fouls". You'd have to say that a team control foul occurs when a member of the throw-in team commits a common foul during the throw-in and until the ball is controlled inbounds.

I'd do this differently, and say until the throwin ends. I like the idea of a "loose ball" foul with neither team in control if the ball's been tipped and there's a scrum.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by jritchie

MUST NOT BE TO BAD OF A CHANGE IF THE NCAA THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA!

That's why I said it was my humble opinion. I think it's a terrible idea to mess with the fundamental rules of the game for a once-in-a-blue-moon play.

[fiasco]

6-4-3g needs to be re-written to provide additional clarification for the throw in. Whether that constitutes including the exception for throw-ins within 6-4-3g or just directing the reader to 4-36-2b, I couldn't care less, but the rule is misleading as it is currently written.

[jritchie]

I would have to agree Fiasco!

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by fiasco

6-4-3g needs to be re-written. . . [snip]. . .[T]he rule is misleading as it is currently written.

Not trying to be a wise guy, but what's misleading about it? Use the AP arrow when there's a double or simultaneous foul and there no team control and there's no other infraction, goal or end of period involved. That seems pretty clear to me, I guess.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Not trying to be a wise guy, but what's misleading about it? Use the AP arrow when there's a double or simultaneous foul and there no team control and there's no other infraction, goal or end of period involved. That seems pretty clear to me, I guess.

The misleading thing is that this doesn't apply to the throw in. On a throw-in, you don't go AP if there's a double foul. But that's not explained in 6-4-3g.

[jritchie]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Not trying to be a wise guy, but what's misleading about it? Use the AP arrow when there's a double or simultaneous foul and there no team control and there's no other infraction, goal or end of period involved. That seems pretty clear to me, I guess.

Because there is no team control on a throw-in, and it says
"Use the AP arrow when there's a double or simultaneous foul and there no team control "
But if you look at the other part of the book it says unless it's a free throw or a throw in!

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by fiasco

The misleading thing is that this doesn't apply to the throw in. On a throw-in, you don't go AP if there's a double foul.

Interesting, ok. I see your point. It refers to no control and to a goal, infraction, or end of period being involved, but doesn't mention the caveat about "during a free throw or throw-in". Basically, they referenced two-thirds of the POI definition and then left out the last third.