Just like NCAA.

Ciao

And that is why the FIBA rules questions get left for the FIBA experts. :)

Perhaps change is coming. The NFHS basketball questionnaire asked if TC should exist on a throw-in. Check it out at NFHS | National Federation of State High School Associations . It is on the front page under winter questionnaires, I think.

Offensive foul, no shots if the penalty is in effect.

Foul by defense before the ball is released, 2 shot to offended player.

not necessarily

Section X—Away-From-The-Play Foul
a. During the last two minutes of the fourth period or overtime period(s) with the offensive
team in possession of the ball, all personal fouls which are assessed against the defensive
team prior to the ball being released on a throw-in and/or away-from-the-play, shall be
administered as follows:
(1) A personal foul and team foul shall be assessed and one free throw attempt shall
be awarded. The free throw may be attempted by any player in the game at the
time the personal foul was committed.
(2) If the foul occurs when the ball is inbounds, the offended team shall be awarded
the ball at the nearest point where play was interrupted but no nearer to the baseline
than the free throw line extended.
(3) If the foul occurs prior to the release on a throw-in, the offended team shall be
awarded the ball at the original throw-in spot, with all privileges, if any, remaining.

It seems that college officials who work a few HS games do tend to mix up the rules. This happens more than I'd like to admit, and I admit that I used to have to think twice when I was calling both....one of many reasons I decided to stick with what I love..High School ball.
I have had more than one argument with a "college" official misapplying a rule....most recently an official trying to go with POI after a technical foul which followed a common foul in a one and one situation.

I've had to do it with both situations. Not a big deal. I typically bring it up in pre-game now, especially if I know I'm working with guys who do college ball.

No, NO, NO!!!!

We should not mess with one of our most basic definitions!! If you want to avoid free throws in this situation, just call it a team control foul or offensive foul (just as it's a PC foul on an airborne shooter, even though there's no player control) or simply change the penalty. But don't change the definition of team control.

Then you have to go and adjust all the backcourt rules, etc.

These are the the two articles that allow a team to throw it in the backcourt. No need for a huge adjustment like you stated.

7-6 Throw in

Art. 8. Regardless of where the throw-in spot is located, the throw-in team may cause the ball to go into the back court.
Art. 9. After the throw-in ends, an inbounds player in the front court who is not in control of the ball may cause the ball to go into the back court.

I somehow think we could all manage added those two articles.

Of course we could, but why should we? I'm not saying that it's not workable; the NCAA has shown that it is.

What I'm saying is that I hate the idea of changing one of our most basic definitions, when there's no compelling reason to do so. Team control is established when a player from that team establishes control. But during a throw-in, we know that there is no player control.

So not only do we have to add the two articles you list, but we also have to add an article to how team control is established.

Why do that when you can simply make ONE change to the penalty section so that any common foul during a throw-in results only in possession of the ball to the offended team?

Less is more. Especially when "less" involves preserving the essential definitions of the game.

Because that creates a different hole....the interval between the first touch (no longer during the throwin) and when a player gains control (start of team control) would still result in FTs if in the bonus. There is no reason to not just redefine team control to begin starting when the ball is at the disposal of a thrower and extend the exceptions for backcourt violations to allow a throwin to go to any area of the court until there is player control.

You are correct, of course, that using only the phrase "during the throw-in" leaves a hole; and I knew that when I wrote the above post. But I wasn't trying to write the actual rule change. I was just trying to show the ease of changing the penalty without changing our basic definitions.

The penalty change could very easily be written to include the time from the beginning of the throw-in until player control is established.