Team Control Mechanic Not Authorized in Ohio

[Camron Rust]

Additionally, a PC foul is essentially just a special version of at TC foul. If you apply the same extension for an airborne shooter to the TC foul, every PC foul would also be a TC foul. Just get rid of the PC foul since the only real difference is that it is specifically on the player with the ball but it has no additional consequence.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Additionally, a PC foul is essentially just a special version of at TC foul. If you apply the same extension for an airborne shooter to the TC foul, every PC foul would also be a TC foul. Just get rid of the PC foul since the only real difference is that it is specifically on the player with the ball but it has no additional consequence.

1) Camron, I agree with you it would be a logical and rational thing to do.

2) I am getting old and forgetful so I do not remember if the NCAA adopted the definition for Team Control Foul (TCF) and changing the penalty from awarding a throw-in to the foulee's team if the foulee's team is not in the bonus and awarding free throws to the foulee if the foulee's team is in the bonus to awarding a throw-in to the foulee's team one year before the NFHS did or if both Rules Committees adopted the definition and penalty in the same year.

That said, when the NFHS adopted the TCF definition the OhioHSAA decided that it would not use the NFHS's the TCF foul signal because it did not want to confuse () the players, coaches (), scorers () and fans (ROFLMAO).

That said (again), I use the TCF signal because I am a curmudgeonly old geezer (just ask my better half and our two sons and my sons will tell you that I am a bald old geezer, ) who agrees with Camron.

3) As I was writing this post I had a third point that I wanted to make but once again, because I am getting old and forgetful I cannot remember what my third point was going to be.

MTD, Sr.

[Texas Aggie]

Just get rid of the PC foul

Why? Is it really that hard to know and use 2 signals for 2 different fouls? I don't understand the mindset that because they added the TC foul signal, that means we need to look at see if the PC foul signal is necessary.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Why? Is it really that hard to know and use 2 signals for 2 different fouls? I don't understand the mindset that because they added the TC foul signal, that means we need to look at see if the PC foul signal is necessary.

Why is it needed? When it comes down to it, a PC foul is also a TC foul.

It's like the NFHS football rule on blocking below the waist. What's the point in having clipping, since clipping is blocking below the waist?

[Adam]

Well, what's the point of having "palming," it's just an illegal dribble (or travel).

[SNIPERBBB]

Because a PC foul can occur when there is no TC

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Well, what's the point of having "palming," it's just an illegal dribble (or travel).

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

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

Because a PC foul can occur when there is no TC

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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

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

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

Not sure what you are talking about in the italics.

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.

[SNIPERBBB]

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

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

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.

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.

[Texas Aggie]

Why is it needed? When it comes down to it, a PC foul is also a TC foul.

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.

[Texas Aggie]

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.

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!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

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.

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.