Rule changes
 

I have heard from a pretty good source that there is one and only one rule change this year....team control on a throw-in.

That would make me happy.

Count me as someone that approves this.

It seems to take them a few years to get the rules they add correct. ;)

Peace

Now if there were a couple of interpretations they would could get correct...;)

I would be interested to hear randall's thoughts on the rule change and how it will affect various throw-in case plays.

You'll need to get him a copy of the original Greek text first.

Why don't you change your username to "Joe Isuzu"?

This is a great change...we need to take out as many exceptions as possible so we all get the calls right.

Instigator!

I think the term you're looking for is "agitator."

We had a late-season, playoff-slot-determining game in this area this year that this rule change would have affected.

Team A is up one point, with :07 left, and a frontcourt endline throw-in. A-1 has the ball for the throw-in, as A-2 fouls B-2.

I can't remember if it was a regular or double bonus, but just the same, B-2 sinks both free throws, and Team B holds on for the win.

Maybe A2 shouldn't have fouled B2!

Yep, and w/o the free throws, maybe B4 would have hit a 3 point shot to win it after the throw-in. :shrug:

How does this eliminate exceptions? Now you need an exception to the backcourt rule, an exception to the 3-seconds rule. . .

If the 3-second rule was written to include possession inbounds and in the FC, then no exception would be needed.

This rule change will induce a mechanics change: the calling official will now have to voice at the time of infraction, the location of the ensuing throw-in. Not doing at this time could raise uncertainty about one's call.

More importantly, they will have to be dead-on accurate with their closest spots. In the past, awarding a FC throw-in when it should have been a BC throw-in was no big deal. Now it is, in a big way.

Why? I'm sure they'll make the rule and accompanying exceptions the same as NCAA, so for the most part, we handle this exactly the same way.

OOB is not part of the front or back court. OOB is adjacent to the corresponding part of the court.

Rule 4-3 Art. 2. A team’s front court shall consist of that part of the playing court between its end line and the nearer edge of the division line, including its basket and the inbounds part of its backboard.

At least it's that way in the NCAA rule book. So there is no need for an exception. The NFHS just needs to define the front court in the rule book. But as it stands I see nothing in the NFHS rule or case book that tells us to have a 3-second count during a front court throw-in.

Having never read the NCAA book, I can't comment to your post. If the NCAA has TC on a TI, then following their lead makes sense.

I was working the assumption that if there's TC on a TI, then an inbounding pass from FC to BC is illegal. This is how it works in FIBA. I've also learned that many officials have to make up the closest spot when they don't identify the throw-in spot with prelim signal. After the fact spot identification; sometimes they're close, sometimes not. If they're not close, it exists assigning the TI to the wrong "court".

And any official worth his game fee will not get this stuff wrong.

See above.

NCAA does have team control during a throw-in and has specific exemptions that allow the ball to be thrown into the backcourt and allows a team to retrieve the ball in the backcourt after the throw-in ends if player control has not been established first.

I believe only FIBA and the NBA do not allow frontcourt throw-ins to be thrown into the backcourt and even the NBA allows that in the final two minutes of the 4th/OT.

No such restriction in NCAA.

Done. See 4-13, Court Areas.

Thanks, guess I was kinda lazy on my search. So no need to make any exceptions for 3-seconds during a front court adjacent throw-in.

I'm curious, though, how they're going to handle 9-1-3, in-bounding a ball to a teammate who jumps from the frontcourt, catches, and lands in the backcourt. I see a few words there that may need to be changed.

You don't have to change anything...as it is, the current exemption already in the book applies to a throw-in (player catches the throw in while in mid-air)...the others being during a jump ball and by for the team not in control of the ball. If we didn't have this exception, the play would be a backcourt violation already.

If the NFHS rule was changed to include team control on a throw-in, then NFHS rule 9-7-1 would apply during front-court throw-ins without an exception. You'd need an exception for that, as well as all front-court throw-ins that went directly to a teammate of the thrower in the backcourt(9-9-1).

See NCAA rules 4-3-5 & 9-9-1(a). Those were the exceptions the NCAA had to add.

My contention is that even without 9-9-1(a) there is no rules basis to call 3-seconds on a front court throw-in under NCAA rules. And I say that even without exceptions you would still be able to legally throw-in directly to a teammate who has back court status.

I agree that certain exceptions are needed in regards to front/back court status for tipped balls and players who leave their feet.

Agreed, a thrower does not have either FC or BC status, as both courts are defined as being in bounds. That said, an exception would still need to be made, otherwise the 3 second count would need to start as soon as the ball touched the FC or was tipped by any player (offensive or defensive) in the throw-in team's FC.

The same situation applies to the 10 second BC violation.

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

Buzz kill.

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


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.

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.

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

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.

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

Yep.

Peace

Oh my!! :eek:

That's gonna leave a mark! :D

I do my best! :p

Shutup.

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.

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

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.

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?

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:

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).

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.

But the rule does not say player control nor team control to have a 10-second count. It says continuous control. And we have the situation where if a team has the ball in the front court and the defense tips the ball into the back court we start the count as soon as the ball attains back court status. That flies directly in the face of what most interpret as to when to start the BC count for throw-ins, doesn't it?

So you are doing your pregame. And the sitch posed is: we have a throw-in after a made basket (NCAA rules) and a) B1 tips the ball and the ball bounces in the BC or b) A2 tips the ball and the ball bounces in the BC. When should the 10-second count start? We know that the shot clock starts immediately in both cases.

And pretend I'm a young official working his first career JuCo game so I have my rule book in hand looking for a clear reference. And this young official just reviewed how A1, in the FC, passes to A2 but the ball is tipped into the BC by B2 and this young officials knows that we start the 10-second as soon as the ball attains BC status.

So, five second count with the left and ten second count with the right? Or the other way around?

No, because the release of the TI ends the 5 second cound.

It says a player or team may not be in continuous control. I'm not sure what's missing.

Yes, because currently the required element of team control isn't present until a player controls it inbounds. Under the proposed rule, that will change. Unless they make the required exceptions (I'm assuming they'll model the changes after the NCAA, but you never know).

You did not specify when the arm started swinging. It appeared that it was when team control began which would occur when the thrower-in had possession of the ball that you were suggesting as a starting point. And since one for the five second count would begin simultaneously, it was natural to ask which arm had which count.

No, the count would start once team control and BC status were both obtained. During a throwin, that could be as soon as the throw-in pass bounces in the BC.

So, while your arm is still up because the clock hasn't started, you would need to begin your 10 second count.

You didn't say that. And if your arm is up, are you not supposed to give a visible count for 5 seconds? So, if your arm is up, and you are giving a visible count for 5 seconds to inbound after you put the ball at the inbounder's disposal, do you need a third arm for the commencement of the 10 second count, since you did not state originally, that that count started after the inbound pass was released? And, if in switching arms, due to different counts, ala closely guarded situations, how do you accomplish same if your one arm is held in the air because time has not been chopped in?

*waits for the 'shut up'*

Sure I did, when I posted the rule. And your questions are where tref was going, too. my point is, he's right in that the mechanics would be messy, but messy or difficult mechanics don't negate the way the rule is worded.

Now shut up.

So, you are not really sure when one count ends and the other begins?

That's the problem Snaq's, I am talking about the NCAA rule. And nobody has yet to point out where there is an exception written for the 10-second BC count that differentiates between and a tipped pass from the FC and a tipped throw-in. I say the NCAA needs to elaborate more on the rule, but Camron says that rule was clearly written.

Well never mind, then. :D I agree if that's the case.

I hope this isn't a serious question. The mechanics are messy due to the arm being up with the clock stopped, but there is no reason the two counts would be confused.

Let me elaborate. I bounce the ball to A1 with my right hand raised and commence counting with my left. After the count of two, for argument's sake, since that is what we are doing, A1 releases the ball inbounds and I suspend that count. The ball hits the floor, and, still with the left hand, since there has not been a touch, I commence my count for 10 seconds. It seems to me that it is not just awkward, but wrong to use the same arm for the visible count since, at that point, I have not chopped in time. Where this really comes into play, is when those players who think it is a good idea to roll the ball in and have their teammate not pick it up right away, do so.

I sincerely hope that the rules committee declares that the count begins for 10 seconds once the touch occurs on the inbound pass. That would allow the chop, and the switch of hands for the different count.

And, btw, I really wish they would make those dorky compression sleeves legal or illegal.

Latin!! Latin!! The original text has to be in Latin, then one can translate it into Italian, and then finally English for it to make any sense.

MTD, Sr.

NCAA already has TC for a throw-in and the 10-second does not start if the clock is not yet chopped in. I'm guessing the words "inbounds players" is what would cover you for this situation. I'm also guessing those words are supposed to be the reason we don't start the count if a defender tips the throw-in. Still don't know definitively whether or not to start the BC count if the ball hits an inbounds offensive player.

Rule 9 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.

If that's the only wording for the exception, it's sloppy, as his team would still be in control once the ball hits the floor on a throw-in pass. One of those situations where we all know the intent, but the wording doesn't say it.

That could get some arrogant and randy official into some serious trouble.

That would make good sense. One should not begin until the other has ended. Now, to read Snag's witty reply....

What happens in Vegas [or Reno] stays in Vegas.

1. Even without the exception, the two counts could not be simultaneous.
2. You know what to do.