OK (not OT) - here's my guess
 

If I had to guess what one of the FED rule changes will be, it would be to have team control during a throw-in with the exception that a player in front court may inbound into the back court. We've discussed this in another thread regarding the NCAA rule and it seems the FED might just pick this one up. I guess we'll find out soon.

Here's a question on that, though. Currently, in FED, if A1 inbounds in the front court to A2 and the ball hits A2's hand then goes into the back court where it is recovered by A2, there's no violation due to no team control. Is this different under the NCAA rule?

Not a violation under NCAA rules.

Rule 7, Section 6

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

OK - I get Art. 8. But in Art. 9, what if A1 inbounds in front court to A2 who catches the ball, ending the throw-in, then A2 passes to A3 who has the ball bounce off his hand and go into the back court? Is Art. 9 "saying" that a member of team A can then retrieve it without a violation? I'm sure that's not the correct interp, but what would a scenario for Art. 9 be?

BTW - thanks APG

I think you're complicating the issue here. The backcourt rule in NCAA and NFHS is exactly the same. Art. 9 is saying a player can cause the ball to enter the backcourt after a throw-in is over when player control hasn't been established. This covers the situation where A taps a throw-in into the backcourt...if there wasn't that article, then that play would be a backcourt violation as all four criteria would be technically met. This exception doesn't apply in your case because A2 has caught the ball thus player control has been established.

Got it. Thanks.

Team Control Foul ...
 

So as a NFHS rules are concerned, it would be same old, same old, with the exception that a foul by the offense during a throwin would be a team control foul, and thus, no free throws if in the bonus?

Are there any unintended consequences that we need to be aware of?

Provided NFHS makes the rule such that it matches the NCAA, we wouldn't handle this play any different than we do with NFHS save for a foul during the throw-in.

I'm sure that's what Art 9 should mean and that is the way it is ruled, but that's not what it says - there is no "immediately" or some such word along with the "after throw-in ends".

What is confusing about the wording? Who said anything about immediately? Art. 9 says that even though there's team control, the team in control can cause the ball to go into the backcourt and retrieve the ball in the backcourt, after the throw-in ends (ball is legally touched), if player control hasn't been established.

I believe someone brought this up in another thread. Currently in NFHS if there is an inadvertant whistle or double foul after the throw-in is legally touched but prior to either team gaining control then we should be going to the AP arrow for resolution. In NCAA there is team control by throw-in team and therefore a double foul or IW in that situation would give the ball back to the throw-in team.

This'll teach me to open my big mouth and say we'd handle the play the EXACT same way. :o

I wonder how many of us would actually handle the play correctly in NFHS as the rule is written now? I had never even considered that subtle difference prior to someone else bringing it up.

Probably me, cause we had it happen in a juco game this season (partner called a backcourt violation incorrectly) and naturally the coaches thought we should've gone to the arrow. :rolleyes:

I don't think there's anything confusing about the rule, but it does seem to be worded poorly. I don't see anything in the rule itself that says "before player control is established following a throw-in." IOW, by strict reading, a player could catch the throw-in pass in the FC and pass to a teammate. That teammate could tip it into the BC w/o penalty.

Obviously, we know what the intent is, and verbal precision has never been a hallmark of rule writers, so it gets enforced as intended rather than as written.

There is someone around here who will argue that we do not know the intent of the rule. :rolleyes: