Rule changes

[tref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Originally Posted by grunewar

Justacoach says +1!!!

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

[JRutledge]

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

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?

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).

Originally Posted by tref

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

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?

[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...

[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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Buzz kill.

I do my best!

Shutup.

[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

[tref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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).

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.

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

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...

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.