I located the source of this language. It appears in the powerpoint presentation distributed by the NFHS this season on the rule changes.

Just came across this on the NFHS site.

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 and 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)

Here's the whole document:

NFHS | 2011-12 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

Horribly worded reasoning.

Thank you!

Now I have another question or two: A1 has the ball for a sideline 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 and goes into Team A’s backcourt. A2 is then the first to control the ball in Team A’s backcourt.

Or

A1 has the ball for a sideline 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 B1’s hand and goes into Team A’s backcourt. A2 is then the first to control the ball in Team A’s backcourt.

In both situations, the correct answer is supposedly that we have a backcourt violation on A because once the throw in is completed by A or B touching the ball, and there is team control in the FC because of the throw in, when A gains control in the BC we now have a BC violation. Obvious, but maybe obviously wrong.

If all this is true, why did the committee decide to differentiate between end-line and side-line for this play?

Not correct. Not a violation in either case. While the "rule" is written in such a way that these would appear to be violations, the commentary released by the NFHS has made it "clear" that these are actually not violations.

Until there is player control inbounds by team A, you can't have a backcourt violation at all.

Effectively, there are 2 team controls....one that starts on the throwin and affects the type of foul and the other that begins with inbounds player control an affects all other rules.

Even if this was not the case, your 2nd situation would still not be a backcourt violation as the last to touch the ball before it went to the backcourt was team B.

What Camron stated was correct.

Perhaps you are confusing the game situation where Team A is in control in their FC (not a throw in) and a pass is batted away by B1 but, hits A2 before going into the BC...if a Team A member is first to touch the ball in the BC...then you have a BC violation because Team A had "control" before it went into the BC.

In response
 

Men,

Thank you for your replies, but let me tell you a quick story. In the state I work in two trainers and local rules interpreters told a group of over 100 officials in a meeting that the two plays I posted were backcourt violations. I sat in the crowd that night and shook my head.

More later about this.

This is just WRONG! A team may not be in continuous control in the backcourt for 10 seconds. If there is team control during the throw-in, then there is team control as soon as the ball touches the backcourt. Technically (even though most officials don't call it this way), the ten-second count starts at that point. They didn't change 9-9 to say that the 10-second count starts when player and team control is established in the backcourt.

The comment in red shows a fundamental ignorance of the rules, and they even cited the rule! You know, I'm really getting pissed off that the NFHS has put the basketball rules into the hands of people who have seemingly no idea AT ALL what they're doing!

I agree with your rant, but please understand that the NFHS released the words posted by asdf earlier in this thread through a powerpoint presentation making it clear that only fouls have changed. Given that, the only way to take the interp you cited is that no count in the backcourt can begin until after player control has been established INBOUNDS. That is exactly how I taught it at our officials clinic and our meeting for the coaches in this area.

Here is another play that the new and incorrect wording of the team control rule would impact:

A1 has a throw-in. He passes the ball towards A2. The pass is deflected away by B1. While the ball is bouncing on the court, an official has an inadvertent whistle. Who gets the ball and where? Please answer for 2010-11 rules and 2011-12 rules. ;)

Wait a second. I posed this question a number of times when word of the rule changes first came out. I even commented when the 10-second should start in relation to throw-ins needed to be written more clearly and I was told I was pretty much off in my own world by several "esteemed" members. Now we want to have a discussion about it? :rolleyes:

Last year: AP throw-in. (The throw-in has ended with the legal touch by B1 and there's no team control. So the POI is an AP throw-in.)

This year: Throw-in to Team A, since the stoppage occurred while Team A had control.

Are you saying that we're supposed to use the arrow this year?

1) I didn't see your comments at that point. I honestly don't check in all that much during the off-season.

2) I don't think there's really a conversation to be had. It's obvious that the people who instituted this rule change have NO IDEA what they're doing to the rulebook. They want us to make several calls according to their intentions, instead of by what's actually in the rulebook. Sad.

Yes....still use the arrow. The team control that exists on the throw in is only team control for the purposes of fouls....nothing else. Full team control for all other situations doesn't begin until there is player control inbounds.

I am really tired of "call it how we want, forget about the actual rule".

1) That's an incredibly stupid rationale for a rule change.

2) If they're really committed to such an incredibly stupid rationale, they should at least write the rule to reflect it.

3) I tried to tell people not to mess with the definition of team control. But did anybody listen? Nooooooooooooooooooooooo.

And oh, by the way, since when is our rulebook superseded by a freakin' 20 minute powerpoint presentation?!?!?!? :mad: