Just a thought here guys to add to the discussion....

Are we sure that team A is still in control?

Obviously we have an interrupted dribble....however, she is able to regain the ball, albeit momentarily and fling it into the backcourt...

Now, we know team control extends through a pass...but, can we consider this a pass? She flings the ball to an area where none of her teammates can even go get it...how can that be a pass?

One could make the argument that white has lost control of it and we are in a loose ball situation....thus we have to go with the arrow because we can't just assume the blue player was going to retrieve it....

just a thought ;)

CLH, exactly how did white "lose" control of the ball? And use the rules definition of team control, not a dictionary definition of the word control, ok? That way you will answer my question AND your theory at the same time.;)

An interrupted dribble suspends player control, but not team control.

Yes I realize there is team control during an interrupted dribble....thanks ;)

Art. 1. A player shall be in control when:
a. Holding a live ball; or
b. Dribbling a live ball while inbounds.

Art. 2. A team shall be in control when:
a. A player of the team is in control;
b. While a live ball is being passed between teammates; or
c. When a player of that team has disposal of the ball for a throw-in.
d. During an interrupted dribble.

Obviously, we've lost player control and retained team control...noone argued that...the interrupted dribble has ended, she was able to get back to the ball and fling it in the backcourt...for discussions sake, do you consider the provisions of Art. 2 to be in effect for this "pass"...would you consider this a pass?...why would a pass between teammates be to a place where a teammate can't ever retrieve it...

BTW, I'm not stupid, I'm giving the ball back to white because thats the best course of action in this one. It's obviously splitting hairs in the rules...I get that...this is just for discussion sake guys

Keep going.

Team control shall continue until ....

And, none of those things happened.

Well, we can always stay in Rule 4 and check on the actual definition of a Pass: "A pass is movement of the ball caused by a player who throws, bats, or rolls the ball to another player".

Notice it doesn't say "teammate", it says "another player". So whether a teammate can or cannot retrieve it doesn't seem to be an issue. The only question is whether you determine if the player actually threw it, batted it, or rolled it. If so, then it's a pass.

And, as Bob points out, whether it's a pass or not doesn't matter, because team control continues until 4-12-3 and 4-12-4.

All good, except for the fact that 8.6.1 is not a correctable error. The FT was never awarded...to be awarded, it has to be taken.

It does, however, provide a way to correct an officials error fairly when it is obvious that an officials error created a result that was not intended.

Likewise, you've yet to provide ANY case that involves an inadvertant whistle anticipating a violation.

As for the throwin, it has to be cut-off at some point....up to the point where the ball is inbounds. If it were any later, you'd have some nasty situations that could result when the teams try to use such situations to thier advantage.

I'm extrapolating from the principles established in other rules....that when an unusual official's error is made, correct it with fairness, even if the rules covering normal situations don't agree. 8.6.1 give us that thinking. That is the closest case we've got to the OP situation.

Art. 2. A team shall be in control when:
a. A player of the team is in control;
b. While a live ball is being passed between teammates; or

I'm just saying...lol

This would be what some refer to as suffering from "paralysis of analysis" ;)

But - as Bob posted above - none of the requirements for team control ending have been met, so how do you justify saying that white no longer had team control?

Camron, I was going to do the line-by-line answer, but thought I would save a little time. Nowhere in any of your replies do you reference 4-36. That is the heart of the issue. You seem to be implying this situation isn't covered anywhere in the rules, and thus are extrapolating a "common sense" answer based on other rules. Unfortunately, 4-36 covers it exactly, and there's no gray area involved. Any other ruling would go directly against 4-36.

And, btw, your case certainly does involve a correctable error. The 2nd FT was awarded when the official mistakenly said, "2 shots". Your statement about the FT having to be taken is incorrect based on 8-1-1. Only one player knew the correct amount, hence the confusion on the rebound. The case play explains how to handle that confusion.

The problem with your reasoning is that case 8.6.1 is also covered by 4-36....ball becomes dead with a team in control an no infraction, goal, or end of period is involved. Yet, they go to the AP arrow instead of giving it to the team that had the ball.


And, no, 8.6.1 is not a correctabe error. It is an officials mistake. We've been through that before. If it was a CE situation, it would have been listed in a different section. Plus, the CE rule says that the play should be "resumed from the point of interruption to rectify the error," (2-10-6)...which is with team B having possession. Yet, 8.6.1 says to go to the AP arrow...contrary to what the CE rule says.

Ok, cool, you've convinced me that your case is definitely not a correctable error.

Which, unfortunately for you, proves my point that 4-36 doesn't apply in your case and does in the original post. :)

Nope, correct it according to the rules.

Then explain 8.6.1. What rule tells you to to the AP arrow when you kill the ball with it in team control and there is no infraction, end of period, or goal involved?