3 second question
 

A1 is throwing in the ball from the endline. A1 passes the ball over the head of A5 who was jumping in the lane, hoping for a dunk or easy lay-up. A5 lands in the lane and turns to look at the ball. The ball hits the floor and is rolling in the frontcourt.

Does A5 have 3 seconds in the lane from the moment the ball hits the ground in the frontcourt?

With the new rule establishing team control on a throw in, it looks like we have frontcourt status of the ball and we have team control. Am I missing something or would this be violation if A5 stayed in the lane 3 seconds?

I don't have my new books yet, but I highly doubt this is a violation...the purpose of adding team control during a throw-in was to not award free throws to the defense on an offensive foul...and to add consistently to the team control definition.

This may well end up being a violation by rule, but I would recommend against calling it that way.

Ah, the Law of Unintended Consequences. :D

MTD, Sr.

Agreed. Don't be a plumber.

I tried to tell you not to mess with the definition of team control, but did anybody listen? Nooooooooooooooooo.

Is it a 3-second violation in NCAA?

3 seconds?

What's that?

"5! Get out of the lane."

Since a three-second violation can only exist during team control in the frontcourt (NFHS 9-7-1), my best guess is, team control in the frontcourt isn't established until you have player control in the frontcourt. During the throw-in, you only have team control, though net yet in the frontcourt.

One flaw in this hypothesis is that a ball that had backcourt status can instantly have frontcourt status without player control in the frontcourt. (Example: Ball thrown from backcourt and lands in frontcourt.) Perhaps the best way to overcome this is to state that frontcourt status cannot exist until team/player control is established inbounds.

Directly from the NFHS 2011-12 Rule Change Powerpoint regarding the team control during the throwin change:
Only team-control fouls occurring during a throw-in were affected by this change.
The change does NOT affect any of the following rules:

• Three seconds in the lane
• Traveling/Dribbling
• Backcourt
• Alternating-possession throw-in rulesMinor edits occurred to some
of these rules for clarification.

Foot-in-mouth disease
 

Check your new rules and case book. They are rife with subtle changes that affect specifically the 3 sec rule and backcourt...

I'm quite aware of that fact...

I'm just pointing out that the thought process of the Committee was not to affect anything other than team control on throw-ins for fouling purposes. Although the wording of the new rule doesnt support their Intent & Purpose of this rule.

And THIS is where we get to the topic of the INTENT of the rule. No matter what the exact words may say, we have their expressed intent that these other areas are to be unaffected. So, if the new wording of the rule seems to suggest the back court violation scenarios have changed, they really haven't according to their intent.

(Translation: They screwed up the wording of the rule and are fudging it under the intent clause).

Thanks
 

Thanks again for the discussion. I'm glad we have clarification on this issue.

Unless there is something to contradict rule 4-12, there is player control during a throw-in:

old 4-12: A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds.

new 4-12: A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball.

Again, unless there is a rule reference, case reference or interpretation stating otherwise, this would mean that, by rule, 3 seconds is in effect during a throw-in.

Clarification and consistency is definitely needed, since some potential repeated violations would be obvious.

NFHS caseplay
 

From the NFHS Pre-Season Guide the following play is similar to the OP:
Play 2: Team A has a throw-in from the end line by its basket. A1 is handed the ball and the referee starts the throw-in count. A5 assumes a position in the lane and A1 releases the ball after 4 sec. and passes to A5, who puts in the basket. [B]Ruling: Legal play. There is no three second count since team control had not yet been established in Team A's frontcourt. Even though team control exists on the throw-in, no player or team control has been established on the court for purposes of a three-second violation.

Thanks for the reference. Looks like the best that we got. I'm sure hoping this makes it to the case book or an interpretation release.

No, the rule still does not affect the time during the throw-in. 9-7-1 requires team control in the front court. OOB is neither FC nor BC in NFHS rules, so 3 sec would not apply during the throw-in.

The only affect the rule change would have would be during the time after the throw-in pass bounces in the FC (TC and FC status are now in place) and before a player gains control inbounds (at which point the applicable rules are the same as last year). At most, we're talking about 2 seconds or so, so it's not really that big of an effect.

And of course, now we have the direction from the committee stating their intent so we can enforce the rule as intended rather than as written.

"The only affect the rule change would have would be during the time after the throw-in pass bounces in the FC (TC and FC status are now in place) and before a player gains control inbounds (at which point the applicable rules are the same as last year). At most, we're talking about 2 seconds or so, so it's not really that big of an effect."

Snaq, I don't think that is correct because it doesn't matter how many seconds elapse when the throw-in pass bounces on the floor and before it is touched by a player since the throw-in still hasn't ended. Obviously, we can't start a 3 count before the TI ends. I think what the caseplay above is saying is, for 3 second purposes, there must be player control (therefore TC) on the floor in the FC before any 3-count begins following a throw-in.

1. Based on the rule, why is it obvious?
2. When the throw-in ends isn't relevant to the rule.
3. The rule/case play does not say PC must be established in the FC. It says there must be team control and the ball needs to have FC status.

By that logic then you would have a 10-second b/c count start when a throw-in lands in the back court. (not arguing, just saying)

See post #10 gents.

I think we will have to officiate based on Intent & Purpose vs. Rules/Case Plays in some situations. NFHS basically said nothing else was meant to be changed since last season, except there is now t/c on a throw-in.

For me, once an OOB t/c throw-in legally ends, p/c re-establishes t/c inbounds.
If you think about it, we arent chopping in time & the shot clock (where used) will not start until the ball is legally touched so why should we be counting 3 seconds with a stopped clock?

I'm not discussing how it should be called. The committee was clear on their intent. I'm addressing the rule as written, along with a couple if misconceptions. Fast forward about fifteen years when the stated intent has faded from memory, if they don't change the rule to match the intent, you're going to see a lot of officials get this wrong when trying to apply the "rules as written."

No doubt Snaqs! They should get it right in a couple more seasons.

So if B1 tips the throw-in and during the loose ball A2 fouls B2 it's not a T/C foul? By your bolded statement that would be the ruling. Is that the intent of the rule?

I thought we were discussing when the counts for violations begin... if we're talking fouls, everything is t/c during the throw-in & up until a change of possession, try or the ball becoming dead.

Here's how you get it right. Remove ALL of the stupid changes to team control. Then add ONE line to the definition of "Team Control Foul". . .

Great idea. You should apply to be the new secretary / rules editor.

Yeah, but he is not as cute as our former NFHS Rules Editor was. Oink!! Oink!!

MTD, Sr.