From IAABO Dec. 2011 Newsletter:
 

Team control during throw-in summary - Play # 9

"A1 has the ball for a throw-in. The throw-in pass deflects off of A2. As A2 and B2 are attempting to retrieve the loose throw-in pass, A2 illegally pushes B2 from behind and a foul is ruled. Team B is in the bonus. RULING: Team A is in control during this throw-in, therefore a team control foul has been committed. Team B is awarded a throw-in at the spot nearest to where the foul occurred."

Anyone here think this is actually correct?

It is correct.

Disagree. When is Team A in control?

Yes.

Did you miss the NFHS rule change for this year that says a team is in control of the ball when the ball is at its disposal for a throw-in?

I assume his point is that the throw-in is now over, and team control has otherwise not been established.

Except team control continues until the ball is dead, there's a try, or the other team gains possession of the ball.

APG - It's the same reason the NCAA-M (@ Michigan State?) play you posted video of earlier this season was discussed and ruled an IW instead of the backcourt violation that was originally whistled by the trail.

Agreed.

No, that play wasn't a backcourt violation because the NCAA rule specifically allows a player to cause the ball to go into the backcourt if player control hasn't first been established even though the throw-in ended. That play has nothing to do with your play (which is an NFHS case book play).

The reason this is a team control foul is because team A is considered in control when the ball is at their disposal for the throw-in...while the throw-in ended, team control continues until there's a try/tap, the ball becomes dead, or the other team secures possession of the ball. The throw-in ending has nothing to do with how you adjudicate this play.

It's the difference between Player Control, Player Control Inbounds and Team Control.

It's also the difference between BC violations and TC fouls (and the requirements for each).

edit: or what APG said.

Didn't say it was a good point.

Soooo
 

Is this play wrong, then? And why am I on the strugglebus about this tonight?

Play # 5: "A1 has the ball for an endline throw-in in his/her frontcourt. A1's pass to A2, who is standing near the division line, is high and deflects off A2's hand and goes into the backcourt. A2 is then the first to control the ball in A's backcourt. RULING: Legal. There is no violation since player and team control had not been established in team A's frontcourt before the ball went into Team A's backcourt."

Player and team control in frontcourt necessary for a violation.

Here's how you need to view team control during throw-ins...it only affects fouls by the throw-in team...we handle EVERYTHING else the exact same.

In the play above, because player control had not been established first, there is no backcourt violation (as well as 3 second violations or 10 second violations).

So I've apparently never noted/grasped the full text of 9-9-1 before. Frightening.

Thanks for the help, everyone.

So do the 3 second and 10 second counts now start on the first touch, even if it is only a deflection?

Nope, those counts do not start until there's been player control.

NFHS Basketball Interpretations 2011-2012

SITUATION 3: A1 has the ball for an end-line throw-in in his/her backcourt. The administering official reaches a four-second count when A1 passes the ball onto the court. A1’s pass to A2, who is also in Team A’s backcourt, takes several bounces and six seconds before A2 picks up and controls the ball.

RULING: Legal. Even though a team is now in control during a throw-in, the 10-second rule specifically requires that a player/ team be in continuous control in its backcourt for 10 seconds for a violation to occur. Technically speaking, the thrower-in is out of bounds and not located in the backcourt. (4-35-2; 9-8)

For some personal closure, I've figured out why I had forgotten that PC was needed for this in NFHS, and it's because PC isn't required in the frontcourt in NCAA for a BC violation.

"NCAA Rule 9 Section 12. Ball in Back Court
Art. 1. A player shall not be the first to touch the ball in his or her back court (with any part of his or her body, voluntarily or involuntarily) when the ball came from the front court while the player’s team was in team control and the player or a teammate caused the ball to go into the back court."

The trouble is that, unlike the backcourt rule, the ten second rule was not revised. It doesn't say player and team control, but rather it still says neither a player nor his team may be in continuous control.....

A1's throw-in bounces off A2, then remains untouched in the backcourt for ten seconds.

?

We've gone round and round about how the NFHS poorly worded the rule. We know through official NFHS power point presentations that the intent of the new rule is to not shoot free throws when the throw-in team commits a foul. Everything else is handled the exact same way.

I know, but this is my first time to consider this particular aspect.

Consider all you want, but the NFHS has told us to judge these plays just as we did before. Wouldn't be surprised if we had some editoral changes the next upcoming years.

There Would Be No "Before" ???
 

Which would be pretty difficult for 2011-12 rookie officials.

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbn...ef563492509775

This part of the rule is the same in NFHS and in NCAA. PC in the FC is not required for either. PC INBOUNDS is required before the BC violation rule can be considered.

Wow, deja vu.

I stated that the 10-second rule was not clearly written a year ago and I was told I'm an idiot for thinking so. I was told I should be able to extrapolate the correct ruling by piecing together 4 or 5 unrelated case plays. :rolleyes:

Re-write the 10-second rule to state that "subsequent a throw-in, a 10-second count shall not begin until/unless player control has been established." Same for 3-second violations.

Bob:

You would be correct if it was still last year. The NCAA Rule has not changed from 2009-10/2010-11 to 2011-12/2012-13 but the NFHS Rule has.

2011-12/2012-13 NCAA Basketball Rules R9-S12-A1:
"A player shall not be the first to touch the ball in his or her back court (with any part of his or her body, voluntarily or involuntarily) when the ball came from the front court while the player’s team was in team control and the player or a teammate caused the ball to go into the back court."

2010-11 NFHS Basketball Rules R9-S9-A1:
"A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt."

BUT!!

2011-12 NFHS Basketball Rules R9-S9-A1:
"A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in player and team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt."

The change in red was not mentioned in the the Editorial Changes made to the NFHS Rules for 2011-12.

MTD, Sr.

I dislike the result, but APG is exactly right. The NFHS rules committee screwed up this rule change about team control and all the accompanying changes. But what we've been told is that ALL the changes regarding control are designed to have only one result: making a common foul by a member of the throw-in team a team control foul until player control is established inbounds. That's it.

Every other play -- ALL backcourt plays, ALL counts -- are to be ruled EXACTLY as they were last year.

So even though those changes actually produced more than that one result, we've been told (in my state) to officiate according the intentions of the rules committee, rather than by the actual written rule. I hate that, but that's what we're doing.

The change isn't what they meant, though.

A1, from the BC, passes the ball to A2, standing in the FC. A2 muffs the pass, and the ball rolls to the BC where it's first touched by A1.

Doesn't meet the letter of the new wording, but it's still a violation.

Bob:

That may be so, but the problem is that the rule as written (see my post above) does not support "the ruling" that we have been told. I started composing a letter to Hank Zaborniak in early December about this problem but put it aside for other things and now I intend to finish it and send it off to him this week.

MTD, Sr.

MTD, Sr/

The problem is, the NFHS changed the rule in order to try to make it stay the same. It didn't work, so they gave us the interps through the power point that some people have seen.

They need to either change it back (and perhaps go with scrapper's suggestion and simply change the penalties for fouls by the throw-in team) or acknowledge the rule has changed and roll with it. As it is now, the rule runs counter to their expressed intent.

From the Pre-Season Guide:

Play 1: A1 has the ball fro a throw-in at the division line. Team B is in the bonus. Before the ball is released, A3 is whistled for an illegal screen on B3.

Ruling 1: The foul on A3 is a team-control foul. Team B will receive the ball spot closed to where the foul occurred. No free throws will be attempted.

Why do they tell us the foul occurred before the ball is released?

Not necessary, just reinforces that it is a team control foul while the ball is still in the thrower's hands.

We all know what they wanted to change - it's easy for me to call it that way and not give a damn about what's written in the book. Why not everyone else?

Isn't that covered in 9-9-2?

I don't mean to be a jerk, but. . . because it's not written in the book. The rules are what's in the book. The rules are not made up of completely contradictory statements made in an addendum, IMHO.

It's not like what happened in the NCAA, with the elbow rule. The rules committee actually got together, voted on and passed a new rule; but the rule couldn't be added to the book because the change was instituted between printings. In this case, they made everyone aware of the change and told us that it actually would be in the book in the next year.

In the NFHS case, they got together, voted and passed a new rule. They included it in the book. Then without getting together and voting, they told us that the rule actually meant something very different, which is not included in the book.

In most cases, we're paid to enforce what's written in the book. So it would be nice if our rules were actually in our book.