I'd say no. They mean "IN THIS PLAY the b/c count doesn't start ..."

So, said another way...

The rules about boundary plane violations and touching the ball while it is in the hands of the thrower are two distinct infractions and violating one does not imply or require that the other has occurred.

Agree. Some rules/cases don't actually mean what they appear to say when taken out of context. They could have done a LOT better job of wording the new rules to get the desired effect without having to establish a bunch of interpretative to except all of the unintended consequences.

I agree, too. I just wanted somebody else's perspective.

Or. . . they could've just added this one particular play to the definition of team control fouls.

Closure ...
 

Thanks for remembering my question. My local interpreter came back from the IAABO fall seminar and confirmed this for me a few weeks ago.

Then we'd be arguing about how you could have a "team control foul" while there was no team control.

Maybe, but the disconnect would be much smaller.

Or change it to an "offensive" foul with the offense defined as either the team in control or the throw-in team until team control is established.

Well, you can have a player control foul when there's no player control.

And an intentional foul without intent.

Maybe, but at least that one starts with player control while the player is airborne and just continues it until the player lands.

After reading that interp, I spent some time thinking about it. Sadly, the interp doesn't match up with the text of the rules book. :(
The interp tries to get around the issue by arguing that the team control takes place out of bounds, not in the frontcourt or the backcourt. However, once the ball touches a player or the floor in the backcourt, it gains backcourt status. So we do have team control and the ball in the backcourt. Per rule 9-8 that is all that is required and the count should start. There is no requirement that there actually be team control IN THE BACKCOURT. The interp from a couple of seasons ago made that very clear.
The NFHS kicked this one. They wanted way a 10-second count works to remain unchanged, but unfortunately they failed to craft a rule which allows that. So they issue another bogus interp which doesn't mesh with the text of the rules book. :mad:

I actually thought of an even simpler way of accomplishing what they desired. It doesn't involve changing a single definition of any kind.
My idea is to just alter the penalty section following 10-6. Item 1 lists five instances for which no free throws are awarded. They are labeled a through e. All the NFHS had to do was create an item f there.
The wording could have been "for any common foul during the time from the start of a throw-in until player control is established."

Yep, that's it. No changes to any rules or definitions. No complications with backcourt violations, three seconds, five seconds, or ten seconds. Just the elimination of FTs for fouls committed under those given circumstances. Why does the NFHS make this so hard? :confused:

I've been saying the bolded part since this subject came up waaaayyy back when and certain "esteemed members" kept insisting it wouldn't be an issue.

Brilliant! Nevada for the NFHS rules committee!!!

Note however, that would have the additional effect of having no FTs for defensive fouls during a throwin.

It is, however, still much cleaner.

We don't argue about how you can have a player control foul while there's no player control. It's the exact same situation.

I should've read the whole thread before responding. I agree with both Snaq and Bob.

Excellent point about the defensive fouls. My suggested wording would have to be "for any common foul committed by a member of the throwing team during the time from the start of a throw-in until player control is established."

I am still happy with the concept. Revert to the 2010-11 rules and make this change to 10-6. Seems to solve all of the issues.