You should start the 3-second cout right away. I mean no one would (just like no one calls 3-seconds during an interrupted dribble), but by rule I don't see why you wouldn't start the count.

I've never felt the 10-second back court parameters have been sufficiently spelled out in the rule or case book.

Where is my buddy Randy when I truly need him? :D

Both of them simply require team control in the proper court. As it stands now, the 10 second count doesn't start until a player controls the ball inbounds and the ball gains BC status. Adding TC to a throw-in would begin a 10 second count as soon as the ball bounces in the BC on a throw-in. That would be a potentially major change.

Due to how it's called, the 3 second count issue isn't as big, but it would still be a major rule change affecting when it's begun. Currently, it wouldn't begin until a player controls the ball inbounds and the ball gains FC status. Under the change, it wouldn't be too uncommon for a 3 second count to be warranted by rule before the ball is even controlled inbounds.

I am going to use the proper term here...Agitator!

The one thing that would need to be changed in 9-1-3 is the underlined portion: "A player from the team not in control (defensive player or during a jump ball or throw in)..."

Without digging too deep, I'm sure there are a few other cascading results of this.

What if the clock is stopped prior to the throw-in?

Does the rule say anything about the clock running?

True, but if the clock isnt running (end of game strategy - delayed touch inbounds) how can we begin a b/c count?

The same way we start it without the clock running. The ball is live, start swinging, partner. :)

You're right, it doesn't make sense because of the way we've always done it, but by rule, that'll be how it goes unless the RC takes it into account with exceptions.

It'll be just like the situation where a ball goes back into the BC after having established FC status; the new 10 second count should begin as soon as the ball gains BC status since TC is ongoing.

Music to his ears......
 

Justacoach says +1!!!

Hate to be "that guy" YABUT t/c does not equate to p/c...

Imagine this, left hand up to chop & right hand with the 5 second throw-in count. Ball is released & rolling up the court. Are you going to begin a b/c count with the same hand you just had a 5 second count on? Or switch chop hands to begin the b/c count?

There was p/c in this sitch not on an untouched throw-in.

Actually I think we are worrying too much about this situation with the new TC rule. They will probably screw this up on some level, but we know the intention of this rule and it is to allow for a TC foul to be called on an out of bounds situation. Believe it or not this is not a very common occurrence at the college level. When the rules comes out they will leave out exceptions and have to use an interpretation or a caseplay to clean it up. Welcome to the world of the NF. ;)

Peace

You're debating the mechanics here. Personally, I would use the same hand (if the rule isn't adjusted properly, but I'm assuming it will be).


PC is not required for the rule as it currently stands, except it's currently required for TC to begin. This rule changes that, in that PC will no longer be required to begin TC.

My next question would be to find out if TC exists "only" during the throw-in, or if it continues through a tip. IOW, is there a moment w/o TC between a tipped TI pass and PC getting secured?

Hey, maybe we should wait until we actually see/read the new rule and interps and case plays before we start worrying about all of the "what if's"...

I don't know. Just a thought...

You know what Snaqs? I've been using the wrong rule in this case. The throw-in hasnt ended without being legally touched so that's why we cant begin a b/c count. :D

I'd say no, as a mere tip by Team B during a live ball inbounds does end t/c for Team A.

This is what happens when there are no meaningful games to be worked. *Bored*

You're doing a great job maintaining his legacy. :D