Another problem with the new backcourt rule?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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?

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes....still use the arrow.

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

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.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

You're preaching to the choir Brother Scrapper.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Yep, as Camron says the new rule change has now been stated to only impact FOULS. The AP throw-in was listed as an item that it does not change in the powerpoint.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

And oh, by the way, since when is our rulebook superseded by a freakin' 20 minute powerpoint presentation?!?!?!?

[APG]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

And oh, by the way, since when is our rulebook superseded by a freakin' 20 minute powerpoint presentation?!?!?!?

When that power point comes directly from the NFHS...look we get it. You don't like how they worded the new rule change. Nothing you can do about it. At least we have clarification on how the rules is supposed to be properly applied. And more than likely, we'll get an editorial change or two in the next couple of years that will fix any discrepancies in the written rule.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

When that power point comes directly from the NFHS...look we get it. You don't like how they worded the new rule change. Nothing you can do about it. At least we have clarification on how the rules is supposed to be properly applied. And more than likely, we'll get an editorial change or two in the next couple of years that will fix any discrepancies in the written rule.

Next couple of years? How about in the next couple of weeks they put out some interps with explanations so that we can at least have something in writing other than "it only affects foul calls".

[APG]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Next couple of years? How about in the next couple of weeks they put out some interps with explanations so that we can at least have something in writing other than "it only affects foul calls".

The 2011-2012 NFHS basketball interpretations weren't enough for you?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

The 2011-2012 NFHS basketball interpretations weren't enough for you?

None of which talk about a pass that is touched inbounds by A2 who is standing in the backcourt and then ball bounces in the backcourt. Since "technically" Team A has continous control and A2 is "inbounds" and "in the backcourt".

So to cover this play, instead of going by the rule book we go by that catch all--"it only affects foul calls"

[APG]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

None of which talk about a pass that is touched inbounds by A2 who is standing in the backcourt and then ball bounces in the backcourt. Since "technically" Team A has continous control and A2 is "inbounds" and "in the backcourt".

So to cover this play, instead of going by the rule book we go by that catch-all--"it only affects foul calls"

I guess I don't see your confusion.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

we get it. You don't like how they worded the new rule change. Nothing you can do about it.

It's not the wording that has me all worked up. Everybody knows that the wording is terrible. And everybody knows how we're supposed to call it. And yes, I keep saying "I tried to tell you . . ." but that's mostly a joke at this point.

What really has me twisted up is the bush league way the whole change and its "interpretation" has been handled; or more precisely, mishandled. It's like they filled a room with people who have never even read a rulebook. And then when they figured out -- way too late -- that they screwed the pooch, their solution is to say "ignore the rule and just call it this way". That is horrifyingly amateurish and, in my opinion, downright insulting to officials who are trying to be professional and who have spent literally years studying the books.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

It's not the wording that has me all worked up. Everybody knows that the wording is terrible. And everybody knows how we're supposed to call it. And yes, I keep saying "I tried to tell you . . ." but that's mostly a joke at this point.

What really has me twisted up is the bush league way the whole change and its "interpretation" has been handled; or more precisely, mishandled. It's like they filled a room with people who have never even read a rulebook. And then when they figured out -- way too late -- that they screwed the pooch, their solution is to say "ignore the rule and just call it this way". That is horrifyingly amateurish and, in my opinion, downright insulting to officials who are trying to be professional and who have spent literally years studying the books.

Agreed. For example, I can't believe they changed a basketball fundamental, and didn't even note it in the book.

[Welpe]

Scrappy, just be thankful you don't officiate under NCAA Football rules. My head spins like a top trying to keep up with the latest interpretations and memos.