Throw-In/Inadvertent Whistle
 

Situation

NCAAM

Team A has the ball under their basket for a throw in with pressure by the defense on the thrower. The offensive player throws the ball in which is tipped by the defensive player, the ball hits the ground and the official thinking that the ball had been hit oob blows his whistle, only to realize that the ball was still actually in play.

Official says that an inadvertent whistle goes pack to POI and that the POI was the loose ball and that no one had team control. Since he said no one had team control he went to the arrow to determine who would receive the ball.

My thinking is that a team does have team control on a throw-in and a simple pass deflection does not negate team control. Therefor, when the ball was tipped by the defense and on the floor that does not negate the team control. So when the inadvertent whistle came and we go to POI, team A still had control of the ball, so team A would get the ball back.

Let me know if this is correct/incorrect and a rule reference or case book play to go along with this.

Thanks

This is apparently another one of those, "Do as we want, not as we say" situations. By rule, you are 100% correct. But the NFHS has said that they don't want team control to apply to anything except common fouls by the throw-in team.

I will refrain from any negative commentary.

But what's the NCAA ruling?

That's correct. If team control doesn't end (try for goal, dead ball, opponent secures control), then POI gives the ball back to Team A.

Scrapper, the NFHS is saying that team control out of bounds doesn't apply to three seconds, backcourt, and other violations (which they don't, if you look at their respective rules). At any time, once team control starts, there are only three ways it can end.

Scrapper:

I understand why you are saying what you are saying, but the NFHS wanted to bring its definition inline with the NCAA's definition and the NFHS did a terrible job of it.

I do not believe that one can say that team control ends when the throw-in ends in the play being discussed whether the game is played under NCAA or NFHS rules. The definition of TC is the same for both rules sets.

In the play being discussed, Team A has control of the ball at the time of the IW. Thw IW cassed the ball to go from Live Ball to Dead Ball. Therefore Team A get possession of the ball for a throw-in nearest the spot of the ball at the time of the IW. There is no TC from the time of the IW until the ball is at the disposal for Team A's throw-in at which the ball is both in PC of the Thrower and in TC of Team A.

The NFHS can say that TC ended when the throw-in ended but there is nothing, nada, now way Jose, can then position be defended by rule.

MTD, Sr.

And therein lies the problem. That said, I agree with Mark that by rule team control doesn't end when the ball is tipped by the opponent. There is nothing in the NFHS changes and subsequent "clarifications" that says team control on the throw in ends when the ball is legally touched inbounds. What a can of worms! Next chance I get I'll ask our SRI, & whatever he says is what I'll go by.

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.

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.

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.

Here's the thread:

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...ourt-rule.html

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I'm going with BBR. Coaches wouldn't know what the spirit or intent of the rule was then or now.

No more or less than they would no what the specific wording says.