Except the thrower-in has player control. Look at the differences in the definition between last year and this year. That isn't accidental.

Is there a specific scenario written that explicitly says that we aren't going to consider team control in the situation where B1 deflects the basketball and there's an IW?

Why would it matter? They've already said the rule change affects nothing more than fouls and they have a case that essentially backs that up by saying there is no team control after a throwin was deflected inbounds....because no inbounds player had control yet. Why would an inadvertent whistle create team control when it didn't exist to start with according to the above case.

No, of course not. That's why he's making the lame excuse of "there's a powerpoint."

"It has no affect on existing frontcourt-backcourt, three seconds, or traveling/dribbling violations.""

Obviously, because
1- the backcourt rule was re-written to reflect the new team control rule.
2- 3 seconds requires that the ball be in the frontcourt. OOB is not in the FC or BC.
3- you can't commit traveling or dribbling violations while OOB by rule.

There's nothing in the rule book to support what you're saying. It makes no difference what they said in a Powerpoint presentation, the rule book has the final say.

Until they make a change regarding when team control ends, Team A still has team control in the OP.

The short version of my two cents.
 

I am can't give my full $50 response because The Game starts in a little over ninety minutes and I have to get ready for it.

Camron makes valid points concerning published statements (both Pre-season Rules Interpretations and PowerPoint presentations). But that does not mean that the published statements are correct. A case in point was a Pre-season Rules Interpretation that was published early in Mary Struckhoff's term and Rules Editor and Dick Knox (of the North CarolinaHSAA) was the Committee Chairman.

Nobody at the NFHS had done any due diligence because a Casebook Play (CP) that was not in the Casebook at the time had been published earlier that was exactly the same as the Pre-season Rules Interpretation (PRI). The only problem was the PRI was the same as the CP only that it gave an Ruling that contradicted the CP, even though the Rules pertaining to the Play had not changed since the CP was first published and to make things worse the Rules sited in the PRI did not apply to the Play. It took me three series of emails among Mary Struckhoff and Dick Knox to convince them that the PRI was not correct and that a retraction needed to be and was finally issused.

The NFHS Rules Committee has made published statements saying things that, in no way, can be supported by rule. The play we are discussing is one such play. I guess I will be writing to Hank Zaborniak later this weekend but will not expect a response until after December 05th, because the football state championship games aren't played until December 03rd.

Time to get back to getting ready for The Game.

GO BUCKEYES!! BEAT michigan!!
MTD, Sr.

This was my thinking as well (as noted in the thread I linked earlier). But even our state interpreter has instructed us to officiate according to the Rules Committee's intentions, as opposed to the written rule. And the clear intention, as stated in the PowerPoint, is that the only ruling that should be different this year are the penalties for common fouls by the throw-in team.

I hate it, personally.

I'll make sure to remember that when I come to your state. :D

While I would like to agree with you, the rule book also has a phrase about knowing the INTENT and PURPOSE of a rule. No matter what the printed rule says, the NFHS has published their intent of what they meant it to say.

By the letter of the rule, the situation I posted above would be a backcourt violation, a 3 second count would start as soon as the ball is tipped or bounces inbounds in the frontcourt, and all sorts of other stuff would also occur when the ball bounces. But it doesn't.

They've told us in no uncertain terms that the only part of team control that begins with the throwin is the part that affects fouls and everything else that depends on team control still works the way it did before...when a player inbounds gains player control.

I agree 100% that the RULE as written doesn't say that, but again, they've told us that is not what they meant it to say.

Time After Time ...
 

Any chance that the NFHS will make some changes to straighten out this mess during the season?

Any chance that the NFHS won't straighten out this mess next year?

What a bunch of knuckleheads.

Doesn't the PowerPoint say "primarily?"

I guess, in a way, it is a LOT like player control fouls. They can be committed by an airborne shooter after player control has ended due to to a try. That is really the manner in which they intended to modify the rule and the way they're telling us to call it.....extend the effect of team control through the throw-in for the purposes of fouls but nothing else....just like the effect of player control for fouls continues until the shooter lands but nothing else about player control is in effect.

"Well coach, there was this Powerpoint that they showed us at the officials clinic...." Right. :rolleyes:

Intent doesn't work when it's contrary to the written rule. If they chose to straighten it out next year, great. But until then, I enforce the rule as written.

You know as well as I do that there's a MUCH better chance that they've seen the PowerPoint presentation than there is that they actually know the rule. So that comment would probably work.

I would like to agree, but I was overruled.

Whether they've seen it or not, I much prefer being able to pull out a rule than give them a link to watch a Powerpoint online.

You can still agree, since they're wrong.

In fact, you had best agree since you drug me into this nonsense.

...then out here in the WILD WEST...you would be wrong.:p

I agree with Camron...our association has already talked about this. We are instructed to follow the "intent" of the powerpoint.

Soooo...would you still "enforce the rule as written" and go against what your local association wants?