Lane Violation?

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Hopefully, they'll word the change to address this, but simply adding TC to the throw-in would change the rule in this regard. We can't see doing it the other way because it's a very basic thing now; 10 second count doesn't start until a player on the court establishes PC. But the only reason for that is TC is required for the count and doesn't exist on the TI.

I think "Player" is superfluous here, because PC in the BC is technically not required for a 10 BC violation.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Hopefully, they'll word the change to address this, but simply adding TC to the throw-in would change the rule in this regard. We can't see doing it the other way because it's a very basic thing now; 10 second count doesn't start until a player on the court establishes PC. But the only reason for that is TC is required for the count and doesn't exist on the TI.

I think "Player" is superfluous here, because PC in the BC is technically not required for a 10 BC violation.

True! If it could only be the same across the board

College officials:
Since tc already exists on throw-ins when do you begin your count, when the ball touches the wood or when a player gains control?

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

A "Player" or his "Team" may not be in "control....."

The terms are there, just not in order. The sentence flows fairly easily as is, and the meaning isn't difficult to ascertain. Curious how you would word it if given the opportunity.