team control foul

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

If an evaluator advises you to say "charge" or "block" or "Player Control" or "Team Control", I do not have a problem with that, BUT, I do have a problem with saying "offensive" because there is no such animal. But as an evaluator, it does not bother me one way or the other if the calling official does or does not say "charge" or "block" or "Player Control" or "Team Control" while signaling, because the signal says it all. To me it is just another evaluator trying to micro-manage his officials instead of knowing what is and is not in the Mechanics Manual.

MTD, Sr.

There are a lot of things we do that is not in the Manual (or any manual for that matter). But this sounds silly as what difference does it make what you say. You blow the whistle that should be enough to show strength.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There are a lot of things we do that is not in the Manual (or any manual for that matter). But this sounds silly as what difference does it make what you say. You blow the whistle that should be enough to show strength.

Peace

I do think it matters what you say....but only to a point. Personally, I don't say offense, but I have no problem with offense vs. any of the others. On the other hand, somethings could be said that don't accurately communicate the call...illegal screen vs moving screen (which can be legal).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I do think it matters what you say....but only to a point. Personally, I don't say offense, but I have no problem with offense vs. any of the others. On the other hand, somethings could be said that don't accurately communicate the call...illegal screen vs moving screen (which can be legal).

If someone says "offense" I guess I am not going to go crazy over it. It really is not that big of a deal to me personally, but I cannot stand it in general when someone uses the term "Moving screen" or "Over the back" when neither of those are fouls at all. At least PC and Team Control fouls involve the offense. Of course that ends with a try, but I do not think people use the team "offensive foul" as a totally incorrect application of the rule.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If someone says "offense" I guess I am not going to go crazy over it. It really is not that big of a deal to me personally, but I cannot stand it in general when someone uses the term "Moving screen" or "Over the back" when neither of those are fouls at all. At least PC and Team Control fouls involve the offense. Of course that ends with a try, but I do not think people use the team "offensive foul" as a totally incorrect application of the rule.

Peace

Sounds like we're in agreement.

[oilpeach]

Does anyone know why we added "Team Control Foul"(TCF) to the rule book. I can understand Player Control Foul, because the player with the ball establish control and the immediate result of penalty would have to first be loss of possession which impacts the entire team. How do you logically establish the penalty for a foul... then how can we supersede this logic because one team has possession. Additional, TCF challenges court assignment mechanics for 2 man. I have searched the internet for a few min now trying to figure out why this decision was made but i have found nothing.

Thanks

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by oilpeach

Does anyone know why we added "Team Control Foul"(TCF) to the rule book. I can understand Player Control Foul, because the player with the ball establish control and the immediate result of penalty would have to first be loss of possession which impacts the entire team. How do you logically establish the penalty for a foul... then how can we supersede this logic because one team has possession. Additional, TCF challenges court assignment mechanics for 2 man. I have searched the internet for a few min now trying to figure out why this decision was made but i have found nothing.

Thanks

I just got home from officiating and my knees have told me that they were not going to climb up into the attic to look at old rules books, none-the-less, my memory is good enough to comment on your post.

A few years ago the NFHS and NCAA adopted the no free throws penalty for Common Fouls (CF) committed by a player whose team had control of the ball at the time of the foul. This change was a reincarnation (my choice of words) or revival (Bonnie Jean's, my better half, choice of words) of a rule that had been in effect until the early 1980's (I think it was about then, but remember my knees, but the exact date is not important). The only difference between the original and the reincartion is that this latest rule change did add the definition of Team Control Foul (TCF).

I did not have a problem with the addition of the TCF definiton because in the earlier era of no free throw penalty we refered to these type of fouls as team control fouls.

MTD, Sr.

[APG]

I think the thinking is that the loss of possesion is enough of a penalty. Before hand you would penalize the offense more when they were in control of the ball yet the player did not have the ball then you would if a player in control of the ball committed the foul. Plus I personally like the rule because it adds consistency...for the most part...between all the major codes in America.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by oilpeach

Does anyone know why we added "Team Control Foul"(TCF) to the rule book. I can understand Player Control Foul, because the player with the ball establish control and the immediate result of penalty would have to first be loss of possession which impacts the entire team. How do you logically establish the penalty for a foul... then how can we supersede this logic because one team has possession. Additional, TCF challenges court assignment mechanics for 2 man. I have searched the internet for a few min now trying to figure out why this decision was made but i have found nothing.

Thanks

Before the change, there was a different penalty if the player with the ball set an illegal screen, or if a different player set an illegal screen. That didn't make sense.

So, now it's the same.