Throw-In/Inadvertent Whistle

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Scuba_ref

Another way to interpret this is that it isn't a violation because both player control and team control have not yet been established. In the example team control has been established by rule but player control has not. I don't believe that the language used is specifically stating that there isn't team control, simply that there isn't both team and player control.

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

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The NFHS PowerPoint presentation on rules changes.

"The rule change adding team control during a throw in only affects the administration of fouls committed during the throw in. It has no affect on existing frontcourt-backcourt, three seconds, or traveling/dribbling violations."

See also the following interpretation...

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)

Without stating it so explicitly, they've created two different team controls. One begins when the throwin begins and is used ONLY to determine the type of foul. The other begins as it did before when a player inbound holds or dribbles the ball....and is used with regard to all non-foul situations.

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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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?

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

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

"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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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.

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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

....

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.

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.

[BillyMac]

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.

[Adam]

Doesn't the PowerPoint say "primarily?"

[Camron Rust]

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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

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.

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.

I would like to agree, but I was overruled.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

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.

I would like to agree, but I was overruled.

You can still agree, since they're wrong.

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

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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

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.

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

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?