BC violation on tipped pass by offense

[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.

[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?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Johnny Ringo

. . . grabs ball with two hands . . .

This clearly fulfills the definition of player control ("holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds"). Thus, clear backcourt violation.

The only difference between this and the situation which brought up the question was that in that situation the player "pushed the ball with one hand" into the backcourt, i.e., more than a tap. It's becoming more clear that for the push to have taken place, albeit with one hand, player control had to have occurred. Thus, backcourt violation as well.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Freddy

This clearly fulfills the definition of player control ("holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds"). Thus, clear backcourt violation.

The only difference between this and the situation which brought up the question was that in that situation the player "pushed the ball with one hand" into the backcourt, i.e., more than a tap. It's becoming more clear that for the push to have taken place, albeit with one hand, player control had to have occurred. Thus, backcourt violation as well.

Yes if it was a "throw." No if it was "batting the ball away from other players." IT's alway HTBT.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 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?

Anytime player control is established, team control comes with it. More likely than not, I'm calling this a BC violation.