Fine with me. Create a signal to cover all illegal dribbles.

A PC foul can also occur when there's no PC, yet we still call it a PC foul.

Just apply the airborne shooter principle and call it a TC foul instead of a PC foul. There's no need for two separate distinctions.

We have one; it was in place before they added the palming signal.

Not sure what you are talking about in the bold.

If the airborne shooter releases the ball for a try then there is no TC, a crash after the release and before the shooter returns to the ground is a PC foul but TC has ended.

When you quote someone, it's all in italics. Better off using bold or coloring instead to isolate a portion.

His point is that PC has ended, too, yet it's considered a PC foul. The same extension could easily apply and call it a TC foul; it's just semantics.

4.12.1 Sit A says that the PC provisions continue with an ABS until they touch the floor. TC does not.

There is also no PC, even though the foul is considered a PC foul. No idea why that's difficult to understand.

Eliminate the PC foul, and re-word team control to include the airborne shooter rule, just the player control rule was written to include the airborne shooter.

A blocking foul is also a foul. Does that mean we don't need the blocking signal? Same (il)logic.

A PC foul is specifically defined in the rules and has been for a while. There is really only one type of player control foul -- the player with control of the ball commits the foul. There are several types of team control fouls -- illegal screen, pass and crash, clear or box out fouls (before the shot), etc.

I just don't understand why its a problem to signal a PC foul when there is a PC foul. Signal a TC foul when its a team control foul other than a PC foul. Just like we signal a block and sometimes a push after we signal a foul. Easy.

PC does not continue, only the provision for a PC foul. This is just semantics and could easily apply to TC for this situation. "A foul by an airborne shooter is considered a TC foul."

But why? The burden is on you to explain the purpose for doing this. Just saying we have 2 signals isn't sufficient. If we never had a PC signal and the suggestion was to add one, then maybe you'd have a point, but we've had the PC signal for as long as I can remember and there is no reason to get rid of it. Let's focus on rule changes that are actually needed and make sense rather than changing signals, which forces a rule rewrite that is totally unnecessary and could possibly lead to some confusion.

I promise: your career will not be cut short of games or even minutes because you used the PC signal instead of the TC signal.

IF there is any signal to be added, it should be for something like when a player steps out of bounds and we signal a violation and point in the new direction. Without using a mechanic that isn't necessarily part of our standard mechanics, some people won't know what the call was. I'm not saying this is a must-do, but if we're going to change something, let's start with something that's actually NEEDED!

Only through and exception that could just as easily be applied to the team control foul rule.

It is not a problem, it is just completely unnecessary. If you call a team control foul and report the number of the player had the ball, what additional value or information is imparted by calling it a PC foul instead of a TC foul. Neither actually communicates what the player actual did (block, hold, etc.) as is the case with other types of fouls.

As for the palming vs. illegal dribble. It it actually communicates what occurred. If you call traveling while the player is dribbling, be prepared for confusion at best. It was that way for a while and it only led to the need for an explanation on what was actually called.

There ya go...just fixed it for ya! :D

Because not every PC foul is a TC foul.

I don't see the advantage of moving yourself closer to a coach. If he has a question, he can ask it and I will address it when time permits.

True, but exactly what do you different after you call a TC foul and you do when you call a PC foul? Why the need for two fouls that identify the same action but one tells the offender has the ball or is a shooter (both things everyone can see for themselves).