Lane Violation?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It was an editorial clarification, not a change in the rule....which means the "rule" was always that way before but enough people didn't understand it so they "clarified" it, not changed it. The additional words make it "clear" that touching outside the spot is (and always has been) considered to be leaving the spot.

Sorta like I think the 10-second BC count should be clarified?

The free throw lane rule had a lot more verbiage but yet it needed to clarified? Imagine that.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Sorta like I think the 10-second BC count should be clarified?

The free throw lane rule had a lot more verbiage but yet it needed to clarified? Imagine that.

Are you saying it needs to be clarified under the new TC rule, or that it needs it anyway?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Are you saying it needs to be clarified under the new TC rule, or that it needs it anyway?

Needed it anyway, IMO, in both rule sets.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Needed it anyway, IMO, in both rule sets.

How is the current rule unclear (NFHS)?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

How is the current rule unclear (NFHS)?

I'm out of town on business so no access to my NFHS rule books. If you can quote me the 10-second rule I can elaborate.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by paraphrased

A player or his team may not be in continuous control of the ball in the backcourt for 10 seconds.

Team control and BC status are required for a count.

[tref]

Originally Posted by paraphrased
A player or his team may not be in continuous control of the ball in the backcourt for 10 seconds.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Team control and BC status are required for a count.

I still believe "a player" refers to pc after the throw-in has legally ended &
"or his team" refers to any tc after pc has been established.

Call me Randy, but I just cant see beginning a 10 second count before the throw-in has legally ended.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Team control and BC status are required for a count.

I would like for them to actually use the phrases "Team Control" and "Back Court Status".

We can on folks all the time for not using proper terminology yet this rule fails to do so on this particular rule.

Of course this is just my opinion. YMMV.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Sorta like I think the 10-second BC count should be clarified?

The free throw lane rule had a lot more verbiage but yet it needed to clarified? Imagine that.

It only needs to be clarified for some. The rest understand it as it is.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It only needs to be clarified for some. The rest understand it as it is.

Are we supposed to take a Camron Rust sponsored poll before a rule can be further clarified?

Still waiting for answer to these (NCAA rules):

BC throw-in. A1's entry pass hits A2 in the leg and the ball lands in the BC.

BC throw-in. A1's entry pass hits B2 in the leg and the ball lands in the BC.

When does the 10-second count start for those 2 situations based on the clearly written rule?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Are we supposed to take a Camron Rust sponsored poll before a rule can be further clarified?

Still waiting for answer to these (NCAA rules):

BC throw-in. A1's entry pass hits A2 in the leg and the ball lands in the BC.

BC throw-in. A1's entry pass hits B2 in the leg and the ball lands in the BC.

When does the 10-second count start for those 2 situations based on the clearly written rule?

Well, we were discussing the HS rule in its current state since the topic was about how you felt the starting of the count in the backcourt had always needed clarification...not how it may need clarification under the new rule change. None of these questions were at all relevant.

In any case, here are the answers to both your questions from the most recent (2011) NCAA casebook...

A.R. 229. The ball is at the disposal of Team A for a throw-in. A1 attempts to throw the inbounds pass to A2, who is located in his/her front court near the division line.
(1) A1’s pass is deflected by B1. A2 leaves the playing court in his/her front court and while airborne, controls the ball, and then lands with one or both feet in the back court.
(2) A1’s throw-in pass is deflected by B1. The ball bounces into Team A’s front court. While the ball is bouncing in Team A’s front court, it is deflected into Team A’s back court, where A3 retrieves it.
(3) A1’s throw-in pass is deflected by A2, who fumbles it into the back court. A2 then goes into the back court and recovers the fumble.

RULING: (1) Violation. When B1 deflected A1’s inbounds pass, his/her legal touching caused the throw-in to end. A1, having established front-court status when he/she left Team A’s front court, gained player and team control in the air. When A1 lands with one or both feet in his/her back court, he/she has committed a back-court violation. The exception to the back-court rules are only applicable for the player who made the initial touch on the ball.
(Rule 4-68.4 and 4-3)
(2) Legal. This is not a back-court violation since neither player nor team control had been established in the front court. (Rule 9-12.1)
(3) Legal. This is not a back-court violation since neither player nor team control had been established in the front court.(Rule 9-12.1 and 4-3

It appears that the NCAA considers a team to have team control for the purposes of fouling during thrown in but doesn't consider true "team control" to exist for anything else until the ball is caught/dribbled inbounds (player control).

Two of your questions are directly answered above and one can be deduced.

[tref]

So basically the bc count begins upon pc after the throw-in has ended, even though tc existed on the throw-in (for fouling purposes).

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Well, we were discussing the HS rule in its current state since the topic was about how you felt the starting of the count in the backcourt had always needed clarification...not how it may need clarification under the new rule change. None of these questions were at all relevant.

In any case, here are the answers to both your questions from the most recent (2011) NCAA casebook...

A.R. 229. The ball is at the disposal of Team A for a throw-in. A1 attempts to throw the inbounds pass to A2, who is located in his/her front court near the division line.
(1) A1’s pass is deflected by B1. A2 leaves the playing court in his/her front court and while airborne, controls the ball, and then lands with one or both feet in the back court.
(2) A1’s throw-in pass is deflected by B1. The ball bounces into Team A’s front court. While the ball is bouncing in Team A’s front court, it is deflected into Team A’s back court, where A3 retrieves it.
(3) A1’s throw-in pass is deflected by A2, who fumbles it into the back court. A2 then goes into the back court and recovers the fumble.

RULING: (1) Violation. When B1 deflected A1’s inbounds pass, his/her legal touching caused the throw-in to end. A1, having established front-court status when he/she left Team A’s front court, gained player and team control in the air. When A1 lands with one or both feet in his/her back court, he/she has committed a back-court violation. The exception to the back-court rules are only applicable for the player who made the initial touch on the ball.
(Rule 4-68.4 and 4-3)
(2) Legal. This is not a back-court violation since neither player nor team control had been established in the front court. (Rule 9-12.1)
(3) Legal. This is not a back-court violation since neither player nor team control had been established in the front court.(Rule 9-12.1 and 4-3

It appears that the NCAA considers a team to have team control for the purposes of fouling during thrown in but doesn't consider true "team control" to exist for anything else until the ball is caught/dribbled inbounds (player control).

Two of your questions are directly answered above and one can be deduced.

Those are throw-in exceptions for back court violations. You say "It appears that the NCAA considers ..." If that is your definition of how the 10-second count rule is "clearly" written then I'm glad I don't work for you.

If they added about 10 words to the 10-second rule an official wouldn't need to deduce anything from a totally unrelated rules reference. I guess you prefer searching all over the book instead of adding 10 simple words.

And considering the amount of times I put "(NCAA)" in my posts on this subject, and that my original statement was during a discussion about when to start a 3-second count on a throw-in, or that almost all my rule references come from NCAA-M I thought it was clear I was talking about team control throw-ins. Or at a minimum you should have been able to deduce it.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Those are throw-in exceptions for back court violations. You say "It appears that the NCAA considers ..." If that is your definition of how the 10-second count rule is "clearly" written then I'm glad I don't work for you.

If they added about 10 words to the 10-second rule an official wouldn't need to deduce anything from a totally unrelated rules reference. I guess you prefer searching all over the book instead of adding 10 simple words.

And considering the amount of times I put "(NCAA)" in my posts on this subject, and that my original statement was during a discussion about when to start a 3-second count on a throw-in, or that almost all my rule references come from NCAA-M I thought it was clear I was talking about team control throw-ins. Or at a minimum you should have been able to deduce it.

FYI, the conversation was about NFHS, not NCAA. The NCAA wording was not relevant. As far as I can tell, before your post, there was no mention of NCAA in this topic. And in the other thread, there was no mention of NCAA until after your statement about you believing the rule should have been clarified.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Those are throw-in exceptions for back court violations. You say "It appears that the NCAA considers ..." If that is your definition of how the 10-second count rule is "clearly" written then I'm glad I don't work for you.

If they added about 10 words to the 10-second rule an official wouldn't need to deduce anything from a totally unrelated rules reference. I guess you prefer searching all over the book instead of adding 10 simple words.

And considering the amount of times I put "(NCAA)" in my posts on this subject, and that my original statement was during a discussion about when to start a 3-second count on a throw-in, or that almost all my rule references come from NCAA-M I thought it was clear I was talking about team control throw-ins. Or at a minimum you should have been able to deduce it.

FYI, the conversation was about NFHS, not NCAA. The NCAA wording was not relevant. As far as I can tell, before your post, there was no mention of NCAA in this topic. And in the other thread, there was no mention of NCAA until after your statement about you believing the rule should have been clarified.

If you've made additional statements, fine, I don't memorize them.