Team Control/Throw In After Made FG

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tref

What about in the NBA?

I can screw up enough NFHS and NCAA rules without trying to guess what the NBA rule is too. And please don't ask about FIBA.

[JW100]

All I know is in FIBA regardless of which way the call went coins would have been thrown at the officials by the fans

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And please don't ask about FIBA.

Just like NCAA.

Ciao

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

Just like NCAA.

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

[26 Year Gap]

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Perhaps change is coming. The NFHS basketball questionnaire asked if TC should exist on a throw-in.

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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.