Throw-In/Inadvertent Whistle

[Camron Rust]

The only thing the NFHS has clearly stated about this new rule is that ALL situations other than fouls should end up the same as they would have before the change.

Thus, there is no team control when the whistle blows. Go to the arrow.

NCAA....not certain. But, I don't believe they've made such a statement....so ball back to A.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

But what's the NCAA ruling?

Sorry. I completely missed that the question was about NCAA rules. We've been dealing with this exact rule (team control during throw-in) in regards to the NFHS rule, that I just assumed that's what we were talking about. My apologies.

In the original situation, MOofficial was correct. Since there is team control during the throw-in, the POI for the inadvertent whistle is a throw-in to the team in control. That's Team A. No arrow necessary.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The only thing the NFHS has clearly stated about this new rule is that ALL situations other than fouls should end up the same as they would have before the change.

Thus, there is no team control when the whistle blows. Go to the arrow.

This is exactly what I was talking about. We talked about this exact play in a recent thread. I'll go find it and post it for reference.

[Scrapper1]

Here's the thread:

Another problem with the new backcourt rule?

And here's post #54. If Camron and Nevada both agree that's the rule, I'm inclined to believe it:

http://forum.officiating.com/798645-post54.html

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The only thing the NFHS has clearly stated about this new rule is that ALL situations other than fouls should end up the same as they would have before the change.

Where have they clearly stated this?

My rule book says that team control does not end until a shot is taken, he defense gains possession, or the ball becomes dead.

It does not say team control ends when the throw-in ends.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Where have they clearly stated this?

My rule book says that team control does not end until a shot is taken, he defense gains possession, or the ball becomes dead.

It does not say team control ends when the throw-in ends.

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.

[just another ref]

On a related subject, does the thrower-in now have player control or not? I can't think of a reason why it matters, but it was a question on our study guide.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

On a related subject, does the thrower-in now have player control or not? I can't think of a reason why it matters, but it was a question on our study guide.

Yes. They subtly changed the definition of player control to match the new definition of team control -- it includes the player throwing the ball in.

[Scuba_ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[Adam]

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.

Player control has, in fact, been established.

[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.