I blew one last night..

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This really "smells" like a violation to me.

Concur

Originally Posted by Ch1town

When A2 taps it, where's the location of the ball?

Controlled tap from F/C to the B/C

[Scrapper1]

There's no such thing as a controlled tap. Either the player establishes control -- holding or dribbling the live ball inbounds -- or he doesn't. Ask yourself this: would you have granted a time-out to the player if he'd asked for it during his "controlled tap". If the answer is no, then NO VIOLATION.

Sounds good Scrapper, any casebook play to validate your stance?

[a4caster]

But you know the funny thing with this play is the inverse, for lack of a better term. If team A has the ball in the FC, basic play, and a pass is deflected by B into the BC, A can legally retrieve the ball. Make sure I'm right on that first.
By using the discussion above, B never had team control, yet we are allowing A to retain possession. Yet a tap on a throw-in doesn't have the same restrictions. Anyone else see the contradiction in this rule?
Just my mid-morning ramblings (lack of sleep and no coffee yet)

[ODJ]

CB 9-9-3 supports violation. Throw-in ends when legally touched. A2 touched ball with FC status. A1 grabs it in BC.

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by ODJ

CB 9-9-3 supports violation. Throw-in ends when legally touched. A2 touched ball with FC status. A1 grabs it in BC.

Almost,..... don't forget, you still have to have team control mixed in there before a BC violation can occur.
.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by a4caster

But you know the funny thing with this play is the inverse, for lack of a better term. If team A has the ball in the FC, basic play, and a pass is deflected by B into the BC, A can legally retrieve the ball. Make sure I'm right on that first.
By using the discussion above, B never had team control, yet we are allowing A to retain possession. Yet a tap on a throw-in doesn't have the same restrictions. Anyone else see the contradiction in this rule?
Just my mid-morning ramblings (lack of sleep and no coffee yet)

If you allow B to tap it into the backcourt then not allow A to touch it while it is in their backcourt, you're penalizing A big time.

B taps it into the backcourt and then they are legally the only ones allowed to touch it. Major advantage. That's what the rules are for, to take away advantages like that and make the game FAIR.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

There's no such thing as a controlled tap. Either the player establishes control -- holding or dribbling the live ball inbounds -- or he doesn't. Ask yourself this: would you have granted a time-out to the player if he'd asked for it during his "controlled tap". If the answer is no, then NO VIOLATION.

Agreed -- but if it was a pass, then A1 had to be holding the ball, however briefly.

[All_Heart]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

There's no such thing as a controlled tap. Either the player establishes control -- holding or dribbling the live ball inbounds -- or he doesn't. Ask yourself this: would you have granted a time-out to the player if he'd asked for it during his "controlled tap". If the answer is no, then NO VIOLATION.

This is a good way to test for player control! I never heard or thought of it this way. Thanks, Scrapper

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

There's no such thing as a controlled tap. Either the player establishes control -- holding or dribbling the live ball inbounds -- or he doesn't. Ask yourself this: would you have granted a time-out to the player if he'd asked for it during his "controlled tap". If the answer is no, then NO VIOLATION.

So if an offensive player is fouled while tapping back a missed shot, you would not award free throw(s)?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

So if an offensive player is fouled while tapping back a missed shot, you would not award free throw(s)?

That is not correct. NFHS 4-1-1 specifically says that a player who jumps and taps the ball toward the goal is an airborne shooter.

One of our most basic definitions is that a player is in control of the ball when s/he is holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds. Period. That's the only 2 ways to have player control. Batting or tapping the ball does NOT establish player control. Therefore, there is no such thing as a "controlled tap".

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

That is not correct. NFHS 4-1-1 specifically says that a player who jumps and taps the ball toward the goal is an airborne shooter.

One of our most basic definitions is that a player is in control of the ball when s/he is holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds. Period. That's the only 2 ways to have player control. Batting or tapping the ball does NOT establish player control. Therefore, there is no such thing as a "controlled tap".

Actually 4-1-1 says "has tapped (past tense) the ball and has not returned to the floor." Either way, that play isn't quite the same. 4-12-1 says "holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds." So I guess it comes down to your definition of holding a ball. I'd call it a gray area. One could say that controlling the ball to tap it is "holding" it, even if just for a moment. The opposite could be argued as well.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

A One could say that controlling the ball to tap it is "holding" it, even if just for a moment.

And one would be wrong. The ball would have to "come to rest" in the hand even for a split second for it to be considered being "held".

Remember - there's a huge difference between "holding" a keg and "tapping" a keg.

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

So if an offensive player is fouled while tapping back a missed shot, you would not award free throw(s)?

Isn't a "tap" a "try" as long as you are attempting to make a basket?

Scrapper beat me....

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by CoachP

Isn't a "tap" a "try" as long as you are attempting to make a basket?

Scrapper beat me....

And you both beat me........