shooting FT's when in bonus

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

I was just being an agitator. My guess is that he just saw someone drive by in a pyrite-colored Scion and he got distracted.

Squirrel!

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Team control BEGINS when a player holds or dribbles a live ball inbounds, or secures a jump ball with at least one foot on the floor.

Huh?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Remember that there are no offensive fouls in the NFHS, NCAA, and FIBA rules codes.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.: There aren't? I've seen many in my thirty years. I'm sure that you've seen your share in the past 130 years.

Offensive (adjective) Disagreeable to the senses, Causing anger, displeasure, resentment, or affront.

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

In NFHS, there is no team control in those situations. So, technically, there is no offense until a throw-in is completed. Thus, there would be shots if the inbounding team fouled prior to the throw-in being completed if the other team was in the bonus.

Gap? Does the action that defines the end of the throw-in always result in team/player control being established? (Asking rhetorically)

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Team control BEGINS when a player holds or dribbles a live ball inbounds, or secures a jump ball with at least one foot on the floor.

Bainsey:Would you kindly supply a rules reference that includes this phrase?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I'll try reporting all my fouls that way in my game today.

"Red, A1, push." or "White, A1, block."

Should make for an interesting evening.

BITS:

You are turning into Mark (Padgett) and reMark (me), .

MTD, Sr.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by justacoach

Bainsey:Would you kindly supply a rules reference that includes this phrase?

Thanks for the heads up. I'll misread 4-12-1. Now, I seek clarity.

This passage says, "There is no player control when, during a jump ball, a jumper catches the ball prior to the ball touching the floor..."

If a jumper catches a jump ball, it's a violation (6-3-7c). Why would team/player control even be covered on a violation, when the ball becomes dead?

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Thanks for the heads up. I'll misread 4-12-1. Now, I seek clarity.

This passage says, "There is no player control when, during a jump ball, a jumper catches the ball prior to the ball touching the floor..."

If a jumper catches a jump ball, it's a violation (6-3-7c). Why would team/player control even be covered on a violation, when the ball becomes dead?

A/P purposes?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I think that was what he was implying, he was just uncharacteristically terse. He must've been in a hurry to get lunch.

BTW, there is no definition of "offense", and more particularly no rule that tells us who is on offense and when. That is what makes the term "offensive foul" so meaningless in an NFHS or NCAA rules context. Based purely on my understanding of the "general usage" of the word, I would say that the throwing team during a throw-in is "on offense." But, obviously, they do not have team control.

You're right. It was more of a working lunch with the boss.

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

I was just being an agitator. My guess is that he just saw someone drive by in a pyrite-colored Scion and he got distracted.

It's an ugly car, I'm just sayin'.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Thanks for the heads up. I'll misread 4-12-1. Now, I seek clarity.

This passage says, "There is no player control when, during a jump ball, a jumper catches the ball prior to the ball touching the floor..."

If a jumper catches a jump ball, it's a violation (6-3-7c). Why would team/player control even be covered on a violation, when the ball becomes dead?

Originally Posted by justacoach

A/P purposes?

That's exactly right. The verbIage was added recently to clarify that this violation does not constitute player control. I believe it was actually a reversal of the old ruling, under which this violation by A1 would give B the ball and the arrow.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by justacoach

Gap? Does the action that defines the end of the throw-in always result in team/player control being established? (Asking rhetorically)

If it is legally completed, it does. A violation called before it is legally completed, a foul called before it is legally completed, and a held ball would be the only things that would not end in team control upon completion.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by justacoach

Gap? Does the action that defines the end of the throw-in always result in team/player control being established? (Asking rhetorically)

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

If it is legally completed, it does. A violation called before it is legally completed, a foul called before it is legally completed, and a held ball would be the only things that would not end in team control upon completion.

Maybe I'm reading his question differently, but I don't think that's right. A legal tip by either team would end the throw-in, but would not establish team control.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

If it is legally completed, it does. A violation called before it is legally completed, a foul called before it is legally completed, and a held ball would be the only things that would not end in team control upon completion.

Not true.

A2 (or B2) touching the ball ends the throw-in, but if that touch isn't also a catch, then PC (and thus TC) haven't been established.