Backcourt Violation Play

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And as I've mentioned in other posts the same wording needs to be added to the 10-second backcourt rule concerning when the count should start after a throw-in.

Meaning if a throw-in is tipped/muffed in/into the backcourt the 10-second count doesn't start until player control is established.

Unless of course the 10-second count should start immediately when the ball gains backcourt status after a throw-in. No one has ever really clearly answered to me what the rulemakers intent is concerning starting the 10-second count after a throw-in. Even asked Al Battista once in camp and he kinded hemmed and hawwed an answer and couldn't give me a clear rules reference, a definite rarity for him.

What they want is clear. The only change desired from last year's rules is the bonus for fouls committed by the throwing-in team during the throw-in. Don't start the count until player control is first established in the backcourt.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

What they want is clear. The only change desired from last year's rules is the bonus for fouls committed by the throwing-in team during the throw-in. Don't start the count until player control is first established in the backcourt.

I know what they FED wants is clear, no changes in rulings based on the new team control/throw-in rule other than TC fouls. I've been part of the discussions since the new team control rules were brought up last year.

That's not what my post is about:

And as I've mentioned in other posts the same wording needs to be added to the 10-second backcourt rule concerning when the count should start after a throw-in.

Meaning if a throw-in is tipped/muffed in/into the backcourt the 10-second count doesn't start until player control is established.

Unless of course the 10-second count should start immediately when the ball gains backcourt status after a throw-in. No one has ever really clearly answered to me what the rulemakers intent is concerning starting the 10-second count after a throw-in. Even asked Al Battista once in camp and he kinded hemmed and hawwed an answer and couldn't give me a clear rules reference, a definite rarity for him.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I know what they FED wanst is clear, no changes in rulings based on the new team control/throw-in rule other than TC fouls. I've been part of the discussions since the new team control rules were brought up last year.

That's not what my post is about:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

No one has ever really clearly answered to me what the rulemakers intent is concerning starting the 10-second count after a throw-in.

I'm confused as to why you have been clearly answered as to what they want but not clearly answered as to what they intend, as I'm fairly sure these are the same thing.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I'm confused as to why you have been clearly answered as to what they want but not clearly answered as to what they intend, as I'm fairly sure these are the same thing.

Easiest way for me to answer is this: show me in the rule or case book when the rulesmakers (NCAA and NFHS) want you to start your 10-second count. Player control in the backcourt is not required to begin a 10-second count in all situations.

I already know what the NFHS wants in regards to the effect of TC on a throw-in as I provided new wording for 9-9-1 to correct the conflict between the currently worded rule for a backcourt violation which conflicts with the intent of the new rule. I have read the powerpoint slides. I'm talking about wording in the rule book.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Easiest way for me to answer is this: show me in the rule or case book when the rulesmakers (NCAA and NFHS) want you to start your 10-second count. Player control in the backcourt is not required to begin a 10-second count in all situations.

I already know what the NFHS wants in regards to the effect of TC on a throw-in as I provided new wording for 9-9-1 to correct the conflict between the currently worded rule for a backcourt violation which conflicts with the intent of the new rule. I have read the powerpoint slides. I'm talking about wording in the rule book.

(I haven't seen prior discussions on this on the forum, so I apologize if I'm repeating things already said.) The NCAA written rule makes sense, IMO, but I suppose both could be worded differently to say something like

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP has great ideas

"An inbounds player, and subsequently his/her team, shall not be in continuous control..."

I agree that the NFHS rule doesn't apply completely anymore. And the case plays, I agree, imply that the count could start on the touch. All they need to do is either reword 9-8 and/or add a case play that involves a throw-in first touched in the backcourt.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Read 9-9-1 from last year and this year. Then look at the case plays for 9.9.1. This has been pointed out numerous times on the forum. They changed the backcourt rule so that it now contradicts a case play, but they want us to rule the way the case play says.

We are talking about different things then. When I said that "nothing has changed", I mean that nothing in the way that we call backcourt violations has changed. I realize there is a contradiction, but that wasn't what I was referring to.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

...I agree that the NFHS rule doesn't apply completely anymore. And the case plays, I agree, imply that the count could start on the touch. All they need to do is either reword 9-8 and/or add a case play that involves a throw-in first touched in the backcourt.

Basically that is my point. Now that they have to fix the wording for backcourt violations they can also add similar wording to the 10-second backcourt rule to make it clear player control must occur at some point before a 10-second violation can occur.

10-second backcourt violations, backcourt violations, and 3-second violations all need to have player control established at some point prior to the violation, so keep the wording consistent.

[Welpe]

Sometimes I think the Fed did this just to watch us all gnash our teeth.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Sometimes I think the Fed did this just to watch us all gnash our teeth.

Not so. The change to player control during a throw-in was welcome. The editorial changes to other rules to accommodate that change were inept and clumsy, not malicious.

[Welpe]

I was being facetious. It seems to happen almost every year in at least one sport so I figured they just enjoyed doing it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

3-second violations all need to have player control established at some point prior to the violation, so keep the wording consistent.

We can call a three second violation during an interrupted dribble in the frontcourt. No player control there.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Player control in the backcourt is not required to begin a 10-second count in all situations.

A player shall not be, nor may his/her team be, in continuous control of a ball
which is in his/her backcourt for 10 seconds.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

A player shall not be, nor may his/her team be, in continuous control of a ball
which is in his/her backcourt for 10 seconds.

Really?

It's PC vs. TC Billy.

[APG]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

We can call a three second violation during an interrupted dribble in the frontcourt. No player control there.

That wasn't the point of BNR's post...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Player control in the backcourt is not required to begin a 10-second count in all situations.

NFHS: 9-8:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

A player shall not be, nor may his/her team be, in continuous control of a ball
which is in his/her backcourt for 10 seconds.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Really? It's PC vs. TC Billy.

Now you guys have got me totally confused, which, by the way, really isn't much of an accomplishment.

I have always started my ten second count when an offensive player gets control of the ball in the backcourt. I did not start my count if a player simply touched the inbounds pass without gaining player control.

I did, however, continue my ten second count when an offensive player, in the backcourt, initially gained player control (see above paragraph) and then that player, or another offensive player, lost player control, but with his team still in team control.

What am I getting wrong here? Have I actually been doing this wrong for over thirty years?