team control foul
 

Having a little brain fart.
I know a player control foul is a non-shooting foul. (in the bonus)
Is a team control foul a shooting foul? (in the bonus)
Thanks

You do not shoot FTs for either type of foul.

Peace

thank you

Think of it this way: When you have player control, you also always have team control. There are never free throws for a team control foul.

To simplify it even more, if the offense fouls there are no FTs involved. And now thats true if the status of the ball is in or out of bounds.

I would not encourage anyone to think of it this way. Think only in terms of team control and player control. If the "offense" commits a foul while trying to get an offensive rebound (and the bonus is in effect), do we award free throws?

Has team control been re-established yet? :D

I understand what you're saying, its seems many of us get hung up on t/c & p/c in regards to awarding FTs. Was just looking for an easier way to help us remember. I guess there's no substitute for knowing our definitions

What about intentional personals, flagrant personals and technicals?

I thought those were a given, see above (last sentence).

I know that you responded to Mark Padgett's post, but that still does not solve your problem because in NFHS and NCAA rules, no where will you find an mentiona of an "offensive foul". The reason being is that there is no such animal in NFHS and NCAA rules. The NBA-WNBA ruleset is a different animal. Therefore, use correct terminology.

MTD, Sr.

While this is true, IMHO it's really just a matter of semantics (unlike an "over the back" foul, which actually communicates false information). We could remove the definitions of "player control foul" and "team control foul" and add a definition for "offensive foul", which would include:

1) player control fouls;
2) team control fouls; and
3) common fouls committed by the throw-in team during the period between the start of the throw-in and either team gaining control.

If we did that, NOTHING in the game would change. I am usually ready to agree with anyone who wants to promote proper verbiage in officiating. In this case, I think, the proper verbiage says the same thing as the "slang".

The flaw here, as BayState pointed out, is that too many people think of a rebounding foul (while there's no team control) by the offensive team as an offensive foul. They'd have a valid point, too, as that team on that end of the floor is still considered to be on offense.

Player/team control determine more rules than just fouls. The more fans that knew about player/team control, the better we'd all be. Stick with control.

Well actually, what I really said was:

Thats not the same as stating that an offensive foul is a type of foul in HS/NCAA :cool:

BTW, why do I hear officials say "offense" when they punch a p/c or t/c up North?

*My edit in red makes the statement true & would be easier for newer officials to remember.

I think most people actually think of rebounding fouls as loose ball fouls...just like in the NBA, and expect free throws regardless of whom gets fouled.

I don't mean to come across as merely contradictory, but I just disagree. I think APG's comment below is actually closer to the truth:

I will concede the point that I read athe word "offense" as the word "offensive" but that does not change the fact that there are no such fouls as "offensive fouls" in the NFHS and NCAA Rules.

That said, by definition: A Player Control Foul (PCF) is a Team Control Foul (TCF) and TCF is a Common Foul (CF) committed by a team when it has Team Control (and there is Team Control when there is Player Control of the ball, but there does not have to be Player Control when there is Team Control) of the ball. And "newer" officials NEED to learn the definitions.

Why do some officials say "offense" when they have a PCF or TCF? I don't know but I would love to slap then up side the head with a wet noodle when they do.

MTD, Sr.

I'd agree with that, there's no substitution for knowing the definitions!

Not a wet noodle :D What do you say at the spot when you punch one?

I don't say anything. I just let my picture perfect NFHS/NCAA/FIBA Approved Mechanics do my talking. :D

MTD, Sr.

"boom"!!

Some of us have been instructed to do so at summer camps. The assignors and evaluators desire a verbal as well as your physical mechanic. They don't like calls being made in silence. The feeling is that it doesn't convey strength.

Value of voice

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

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

Sounds like we're in agreement. :)

Why was Team Control Foul Added.
 

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.:mad:

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.

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.

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.