Can anyone explain....
 

....WHY....the rule is: "there is no team control during a throw-in". There MUST be some reasonable explanation, but it just seems more natural that once the player has the ball.....his team is in control of that ball. Am I missing something obvious, or is this simply an attempt by the rules committee to confuse?

Opinions count ;)

Player control, which must be established at some point in order for there to be team control, is defined as holding or dribbling a live ball INBOUNDS. During a throw-in the thrower is standing out of bounds, so this player cannot establish player control by definition. Hence there is no team control during a throw-in.

The NCAA decided to alter the team control definition, but not the player control definition, a couple of years ago when introducing the team control foul.

Even though the ball is live, there's no team control until a player establishes player control, just like any time team control doesn't exist and must be established. Player control is defined as a player holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds. An inbounder holding the ball is OOB, therefore no player control, therefore no team control.

It's the rule.

When the game was invented the ball used was a soccer ball. The inventor and the players were familiar with soccer rules. The "throw in" is described in soccer rules literature as "nothing more important than a way of getting the ball into play". The concept of "Team control" has little if no meaning in soccer rules. So by pure conjecture, that is how we, historically, have no "team control" during a throw-in. ;)

Now THAT makes sense. :D

I understand the rule......but I think it should be changed, in order to simplify.


Thanks, all ;)

The problem with changing the rule is that there would then have to be more exceptions added to the book. In general, the Fed has tried to limit the number of exceptions that are in its rules books.

Actually, this might be a good NF rule change. Here's why. It would make things more consistent. A foul committed by an offensive player during a throw-in (such as an illegal screen) would then carry the same penalty whether or not the throw-in had been completed. And why shouldn't it? The foul really should have the same consequence whether the ball has already been thrown in or not, since the illegal screen performs the same "badness". Also, it would make a throw-in that deflects off an offensive players hand and goes into their backcourt and then is recovered by that team a violation, the same as if it was just a pass during play. Why shouldn't it count the same? It would also eliminate being able to inbound into the backcourt if the throw-in spot was in the frontcourt because it would be a violation. Now, that's a major change.

I guess also that a foul by a defensive player on an inbounder holding the ball wouldn't be intentional anymore, but a "regular" common foul because of team control - OK, maybe or maybe not.

My following remarks apply equally to both NCAA and NFHS, except that the NCAA changed its definition of team control a few years back.

Until the early 1990's, I think, it may have been the late 1980's but I do not feel like climbing up into the attic to check for sure, but when the change was made is not important (not 1890's, :D) the ball was dead during a throw-in and did not become live until it was touched by a player inbouds or out-of-bounds (assuming that the thrower released the ball so that it crossed the boundary plane before being touched by a player inbounds or out-of-bounds).

The concept behind player and team control is that the ball is live and has either frontcourt or backcourt status. When the ball is being held by a player out of bounds the ball was dead (now live) does not have frontcourt or backcourt status. The NCAA changed its team control definition to reduce the number of free throws being shot for common fouls.

So ends the history lesson.

MTD, Sr.

All Of It ...
 

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr: Thanks. You don't need to watch the History Channel because you've already lived it.

Billy:

My sons (Jr. and Andy) keep telling me the same thing. :D

MTD, Sr.

I actually think that defining team control, and even player control, to begin when the ball is at the thrower's disposal would increase consistency and simplify many things.

I agree from the consistency standpoint, I think I see more mess ups with shooting-non shooting free throws at the HS level than any other ordinary rule.

More Exceptions ???
 

Except a lot more exceptions to backcourt situations. How is this handled on the NCAA level?