Basketball Interpretations

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Agree.

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

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.

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

And an intentional foul without intent.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

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

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Does the part in red also apply if player and team control has been established in the frontcourt, but the ball is deflected into the backcourt by a defender? Are we now saying that a new 10-second count doesn't start until player control is regained in the backcourt?

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.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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

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?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

...

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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."

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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."

This is almost exactly the same wording I recommended in a previous thread when complaining about the change to the definition of team control.

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.

I would settle for this, but I still would like to see this common foul classified as something more specific than simply a non-shooting foul. I would prefer to see the wording that Nevada (and I) suggests added to the definition of "team control foul" and signaled with the punch.

But I agree 100% that we should simply remove ALL the changes that were made this year.

[chseagle]

In case no one has checked, NFHS has posted some 2011-2012 Basketball Rules Interpretations at: NFHS | 2011-12 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by chseagle

In case no one has checked, NFHS has posted some 2011-2012 Basketball Rules Interpretations at: NFHS | 2011-12 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

Did some of them look like this?:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

SITUATION 2: A1 has the ball for an end-line throw-in in his/her frontcourt. The administering official reaches a four-second count when A1 passes the ball to A2, who had been standing in the free-throw lane since A1 had the ball at his/her disposal.

RULING: Legal. Even though a team is now in control during a throw-in, the three-second rule specifically requires that a team be in control in its frontcourt for a violation to occur. Technically speaking, the thrower-in is
out of bounds and not located in the
frontcourt. (4-35-2; 9-7)


SITUATION 3: A1 has the ball for an end-line throw-in in his/her backcourt.
The administering official reaches a four-second count when A1 passes the ball onto the court. A1’s pass to A2, who is also in Team A’s backcourt, takes several bounces and six seconds before A2 picks up and controls the ball.

RULING: Legal. Even though a team is now in control during a throw-in, the 10-second rule specifically requires that a player/team be in continuous control in its backcourt for 10 seconds for a violation to occur. Technically speaking, the thrower-in is out of bounds and not located in the backcourt. (4-35-2; 9-8)


SITUATION 5: A1 has the ball for an end-line throw-in in his/her frontcourt. A1’s pass to A2, who is in the frontcourt standing near the division line, is high and deflects off A2’s hand nd goes into Team A’s backcourt. A2 is then the first to control the ball in Team A’s backcourt.

RULING: Legal. There is no backcourt violation since player and team control had not yet been established in Team A’s frontcourt before the ball went into Team A’s backcourt. The throw-in ends when A2 legally touches the ball, but the backcourt count does not start until A2 gains control in his/her backcourt. (4-12-2d; 9-9)


SITUATION 8: Team A has a designated spot throw-in along the end line. Thrower A1 extends the ball with his/her arms over the end line such that part of the forearms, hands and the ball are entirely on the inbounds side of the boundary line. B2 slaps A1 on the wrist and dislodges the ball.

RULING: When a defender makes contact with a thrower-in, the result is an intentional foul. Where A1’s arms are located (on the inbounds or out-ofbounds side of the boundary line) is immaterial for this penalty to be assessed. A1 is awarded two free throws and Team A awarded a throwin at the spot nearest the foul.
COMMENT: For a boundary-plane violation warning to also be assessed, the defender must actually violate the rule and penetrate the boundary plane. (4-19-3e; 4-47-1; 7-5-4b; 9-2-10 Penalty 4)