BC violation on tipped pass by offense

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Then BY YOUR DETERMINATION player control was not established by A1. Therefore, there was no team control, so you made an incorrect decision in calling a backcourt violation.

See the point?

There is no timing aspect to player control. By that I mean there is no length of time you have to have player control for there to be team control. For example, on the tip off if B2 gathers the ball in both hands and then immediately loses the ball out of bounds, what are you going to do with the arrow? Hopefully, you'll point it toward A's basket and give the ball to Team A for a throw-in. During the time the player had the ball you probably would not have been able to recognize and grant a timeout request. Does that still mean player control and thus team control did not exist? No! Team control was established even if it was for only a second.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The point is not whether it was feasible to actually have requested a TO during the short window of time; the question asked is wether there was such a window.

Consider this, if A's coach is requesting TO, repeatedly, during this process, would you have granted it. The point of Nevada's question is simple, unless there was a window, no matter how brief, during which a TO could be granted, then you never had player control. Without player control, there is no team control, and thus no BC violation.

A controlled tap does not give you player control. If he grabbed it and threw it, then you were right.

On this play, I'd err on the side of no control.

We have to get away from using this argument that if you would not grant a timeout then they didn't have team control. This works in some situations, but not all and is a bad way of thinking about this, IMHO. The time it takes to turn and recognize that it is the coach requesting a timeout is in many cases too long. A team could of had team control but lost it by the time you recognize the coach calling the timeout. Because I could not grant the timeout, does that mean the team did not have team control, if even briefly? No. All you need to know is did the player have control of the ball. If so, team control is established. There is no time requirement in the rule book for team control.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rwest

We have to get away from using this argument that if you would not grant a timeout then they didn't have team control. This works in some situations,

IT works, in theory, in all situations. Intial player control and team control and ability to grant a time out all happen at the same time.

I agree that in practice, it would be difficult to request and be granted a TO in this brief instance, but it has happened.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

We have to get away from using this argument that if you would not grant a timeout then they didn't have team control. This works in some situations, but not all and is a bad way of thinking about this, IMHO. The time it takes to turn and recognize that it is the coach requesting a timeout is in many cases too long. A team could of had team control but lost it by the time you recognize the coach calling the timeout. Because I could not grant the timeout, does that mean the team did not have team control, if even briefly? No. All you need to know is did the player have control of the ball. If so, team control is established. There is no time requirement in the rule book for team control.

Nor is there a time requirement for a time out to be granted. If Coach A is requesting it as A1 briefly gets control, I'm going to grant the time out, even if B1 steals it before my whistle blows. It's just like granting a TO after a made basket when the thrower has the ball by the time you blow the whistle. I'll have no problem explaining that to a coach.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by snaqwells

nor is there a time requirement for a time out to be granted. If coach a is requesting it as a1 briefly gets control, i'm going to grant the time out, even if b1 steals it before my whistle blows. It's just like granting a to after a made basket when the thrower has the ball by the time you blow the whistle. I'll have no problem explaining that to a coach.

+1

[rwest]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

IT works, in theory, in all situations. Intial player control and team control and ability to grant a time out all happen at the same time.

I agree that in practice, it would be difficult to request and be granted a TO in this brief instance, but it has happened.

So by the definition that if you can call a time out there is team control, then there is no team control when team B requests a timeout but team A has a live ball inbounds. Team B can't call a timeout. I know no one is suggesting this. My only point is I don't like using when a timeout can be taken to define team control. Plus it's not needed. If you deem the player had control of the ball, then there is team control, no matter how much time transpired.

As to the OP, if I see a controlled pass by a player in the air, I'm going to interpret this as control. In order for a player to make a pass like this the ball had to come to rest in his hand, thereby, meeting the definition of control. He doesn't have to have two hands on the ball for control to be established.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by rwest

If I see a controlled pass by a player in the air, I'm going to interpret this as control. In order for a player to make a pass like this the ball had to come to rest in his hand, thereby, meeting the definition of control. He doesn't have to have two hands on the ball for control to be established.

What? So if a long pass from A1 to A2 is in the air, halfway between A1 and A2, and someone from Team A requests a timeout, you, as an official will grant the request? So it wouldn't matter to you if a split second after the officials whistle to grant the timeout, B1 stole the pass was about to drive in for an uncontested layup. It sure would matter to the Team B coach.

Wow. If there ever was a job for the Mythbusters, this is certainly the job:

The head coach may request and be granted a timeout if his or her player is holding or dribbling the ball, or during a dead ball period.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What? So if a long pass from A1 to A2 is in the air, halfway between A1 and A2, and someone from Team A requests a timeout, you, as an official will grant the request? So it wouldn't matter to you if a split second after the officials whistle to grant the timeout, B1 stole the pass was about to drive in for an uncontested layup. It sure would matter to the Team B coach.

Wow. If there ever was a job for the Mythbusters, this is certainly the job:

The head coach may request and be granted a timeout if his or her player is holding or dribbling the ball, or during a dead ball period.

I said that if there is a controlled pass, then team control exists. I never said I'd grant a timeout after the pass. Team control and when a timeout can be granted are two separate issues. They are related, but still separate. All I said was that there is team control if I see a controlled pass. No where in what you quoted did I say I'd grant a time out.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What? So if a long pass from A1 to A2 is in the air, halfway between A1 and A2, and someone from Team A requests a timeout, you, as an official will grant the request? So it wouldn't matter to you if a split second after the officials whistle to grant the timeout, B1 stole the pass was about to drive in for an uncontested layup. It sure would matter to the Team B coach.

Wow. If there ever was a job for the Mythbusters, this is certainly the job:

The head coach may request and be granted a timeout if his or her player is holding or dribbling the ball, or during a dead ball period.

This just furthers my argument that we should not determine that team control exists when we would grant a timeout. Team control does exist on a pass, but we won't grant a timeout during a pass. So by some of the posters on this thread team control doesn't exist on a pass. Not if we use their principle of if you would grant a timeout then team control exists. Because if one is true then the corrollary is also true. Namely, that if you wouldn't grant a time out then team control doesn't exist. And this is blatantly not true.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by rwest

This just furthers my argument that we should not determine that team control exists when we would grant a timeout. Team control does exist on a pass, but we won't grant a timeout during a pass. So by some of the posters on this thread team control doesn't exist on a pass. Not if we use their principle of if you would grant a timeout then team control exists. Because if one is true then the corrollary is also true. Namely, that if you wouldn't grant a time out then team control doesn't exist. And this is blatantly not true.

In order for a time out to be called, PLAYER control must exist -- UNLESS the ball is at the disposal of the team requesting the time out.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by rwest

If I see a controlled pass by a player in the air, I'm going to interpret this as control. In order for a player to make a pass like this the ball had to come to rest in his hand, thereby, meeting the definition of control. He doesn't have to have two hands on the ball for control to be established.

I'm still not sure what you're aiming at here. What you say is true, but I'm not sure why you're saying it, because what is being said can be misconstrued by those not well versed in basketball rules.

During an an "uncontrolled" pass, a fumble, a muff, a pass tipped by the defense, a ball dribbled off a foot, an interrupted dribble, etc., there is still team control until the ball is in flight during a try or tap for goal, an opponent secures control, or the ball becomes dead.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

In order for a time out to be called, PLAYER control must exist -- UNLESS the ball is at the disposal of the team requesting the time out.

Amen.

If a team has player control, they also have team control, by rule. But a team can have team control but not have player control, also by rule. So the simplest way to state what is necessary for an official to grant a time-out request is exactly what CMHCoachNRef said above but add to it "or the ball is dead" to cover all situations.

From the original post, the call is a straight judgment call. If you judged that the ball came to rest in the hand of the player while tipping the ball, it's a backcourt violation because player control and thus team control was established in the frontcourt. If you judge that the ball didn't come to rest and therefore player/team control was never established in the front court, then it's play on. And the only person that can make the judgment is the official that is responsible for making the call. It's always a HTBT call.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

This just furthers my argument that we should not determine that team control exists when we would grant a timeout. Team control does exist on a pass, but we won't grant a timeout during a pass. So by some of the posters on this thread team control doesn't exist on a pass. Not if we use their principle of if you would grant a timeout then team control exists. Because if one is true then the corrollary is also true. Namely, that if you wouldn't grant a time out then team control doesn't exist. And this is blatantly not true.

Nobody said crap about determining team control with that, and no one tied team control to a timeout. The question is whether player control ever existed. Player control is a requirement to establish team control, sure, but team control itself is irrelevant for a timeout.

As Billy pointed out, team control continues until the ball becomes dead, a shot is released, or the other team gains player control.

Let me spell this out again.

In order to have a BC violation in the OP, PLAYER control has to have existed with the pass rather than just a tip, because player control estalblishes team control. Everytime. Team control is really all that's required for a BC violation, but team control can never exist until player control has existed.

Player control is the same thing that's required for a TO (except throwins, free throws and dead balls), so the principal is the same. Exactly the same.

Whether you'd grant a TO if a coach was requesting it while A1 briefly controlled it is, really, a topic for another thread. My point is, the rule is the same for both, so the theory works. Every time.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Whether you'd grant a TO if a coach was requesting it while A1 briefly controlled it is, really, a topic for another thread. My point is, the rule is the same for both, so the theory works. Every time.

Agreed.

Some people have trouble determining when PC exists. Many of these people do not have trouble determining whether a TO would be granted. Once it's pointed out that the criteria are the same, the confusion on the initial question goes away. If that logic doesn't work for you, well, it doesn't work for you. :shrug: That doesn't make it a bad teaching method (for others).

[Johnny Ringo]

Same sort of situation: A1 shoots. Ball hits rim and bounces long towards the corner. A2 chases it down, jumps in the air while going out of bounds and grabs ball with two hands and throws back over his head (A2 was looking in opposite direction). Basketball goes into the BC where A3 is the first to touch?

What do you call? BC because the throw established team control? Or was it not team control?