Rule changes

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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...

Buzz kill.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

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.

By common sense, I agree. By rule, I don't think it's correct.

Originally Posted by tref

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

I'm assuming you mean "doesn't", and I would agree. Besides, the intent is to not have free throws; so I doubt they would want to distinguish between pre-tip and post-tip for an offensive foul.

Originally Posted by tref

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

yep, and I'm not worried about anything. I fully expect to enforce the rule as we think it's intended. The rule will be messed up some how, but communication will be sent out indicating the intent.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Either that or you define PC to include a ball in possession of a thrower....holding or "dribbling" a live ball without reference to it being inbounds.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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?

I asked the exact same question. We'll see if they make it consistent and clean or a mess.

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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...

Or maybe, those that are finalizing the rules and interps just might happen to see some of the questions here and will make sure they get it right to start with. They probably won't get it right/complete to start, but it doesn't hurt to be hopeful.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Either that or you define PC to include a ball in possession of a thrower....holding or "dribbling" a live ball without reference to it being inbounds.

I don't think that would help, as it would still leave the change in when you start a BC or 3 second count.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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...

Yep.

Peace

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You're doing a great job maintaining his legacy.

Oh my!!

That's gonna leave a mark!

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Buzz kill.

I do my best!

Shutup.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tref

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.

...

I've always felt the rule and case books should more clearly spell out when a 10-second count should start on a throw-in. Hopefully if this rule is changed the NFHS might throw some case plays in the mix to address the 10-second count.

As far as NCAA rules I think it's inconsistent that on a throw-in the shot clock starts immediately upon a throw-in being legally touched but the 10-second count wouldn't.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Oh my!!

That's gonna leave a mark!

The word count for all my posts in this thread combined is still lower than any one single post from my buddy.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I don't think that would help, as it would still leave the change in when you start a BC or 3 second count.

Aren't both already adequately covered? Team control IN the frontcourt for 3 seconds and team control IN the backcourt for the 10 second count. I guess that might have a count starting before a player gains control inbounds but I don't see that as a huge problem. I suppose you could change those count rules to only apply after there has been player control inbounds.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I've always felt the rule and case books should more clearly spell out when a 10-second count should start on a throw-in.

Exactly what is unclear? The count starts when there is team control and the ball has backcourt status.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Exactly what is unclear? The count starts when there is team control and the ball has backcourt status.

Section 10. (Men) 10-Second Violation
An inbounds player (and his team) shall not be in continuous control of a ball that is in his back court for 10 consecutive seconds.

That is all that the rules says. With all the other verbiage we have for other rules this is pretty bare bones especially since we have shot clock implications that are contradictory to the 10-second count if a throw-in is tipped.

It's pretty clear that when the ball is at the disposal of a thrower-in that the ball has neither front court nor back court status yet they felt it necessary to tell us that a throw-in from a spot adjacent to front court can be thrown to a person in the back court. Why is that spelled out in the rule book?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Section 10. (Men) 10-Second Violation
An inbounds player (and his team) shall not be in continuous control of a ball that is in his back court for 10 consecutive seconds.

That is all that the rules says. With all the other verbiage we have for other rules this is pretty bare bones especially since we have shot clock implications that are contradictory to the 10-second count if a throw-in is tipped.

It's pretty clear that when the ball is at the disposal of a thrower-in that the ball has neither front court nor back court status yet they felt it necessary to tell us that a throw-in from a spot adjacent to front court can be thrown to a person in the back court. Why is that spelled out in the rule book?

My guess is they added it just to clear up a misconception, it wouldn't be the only redundant rule in the book, either.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

My guess is they added it just to clear up a misconception, it wouldn't be the only redundant rule in the book, either.

Exactly. So what's wrong with clearly spelling out different scenarios for the 10-second count especially since the 10-second rule does not use the terms "team control" or "back court status" which Camron implies the rule does.

If fact what Camron wrote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Exactly what is unclear? The count starts when there is team control and the ball has backcourt status.

would tell us to immediately start the 10-second count upon a tip because there would be TC (inherited from the throw-in) and back court status (inherited from the player who tipped the ball).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Section 10. (Men) 10-Second Violation
An inbounds player (and his team) shall not be in continuous control of a ball that is in his back court for 10 consecutive seconds.

That is all that the rules says.

I thought we were talking about HS rules where there is no shot clock and, before now, there was no team control on the throwin.

Under that context....covering the timeframe where you always felt the rule was not adequate, what exactly was missing or unclear? Some things are just that simple.

I just noticed, while looking at the NCAA book, that player control is technically defined to exist during the throw-in.

Art. 1. A player shall be in control when:
a. Holding a live ball; or
b. Dribbling a live ball while inbounds.

Hmmm.