Backcourt...Again
 

A1 throw in to A2 in frontcourt near division line. A2 never has control and fumbles the pass into the backcourt and retrieves it. No violation.. correct? Even though the new rule says there is team control on throw in.

Based on all the discussions we've had on this subject what element do you think is missing that prevents this from being a backcourt violation?

I know you were involved in one of the discussions.

No team control?

Wasn't there a couple plays in NCAA in Nov/Dec where this exact scenario happened. They said that because there was no PC inbounds, FC status for the ball has not been established, therefore no BC violation. And by the Transitive Property (math teacher) the NCAA and NFHS rules are similar on throw-in provisions in this case, I say no violation.

There is TC from the beginning of the throw-in. You even stated so above.

Read 9-9-1 and then tell us what you think.

There may be tc, but not TC. :)

"I like her, but I don't LIKE LIKE her."

Correction?
 

Suppose in the OP the covering official mistakenly calls a bc violation. Can another/both come to discuss and change? If so, is ball given back to A at spot closest to the backcourt recovery? Suppose whistle comes on A2's first touch in backcourt, but almost immediately after, B1 slaps ball away and is heading for his goal?

I don't see why this couldn't be "overturned" by another official. Depending on when the whislte occured you could find your self with an AP throw in which would be fun to explain. The likelyhood of that happening would probably be impacted by where on the court the initial contact occured.

I can't imagine too many situations in which I'd even have anything helpful for the T official, especially if I was L.

I know you put it in quotes, but please don't use this term. All you can really do, by rule, is give him information you have and give him the choice to make the change or not.

Yes, it can be changed. It's then an IW. Give the ball back to A.

Exactly. "Hey Bill, I had B5 last touching the ball before it went into the backcourt." The next move is Bill's.

I believe the TC that I mentioned only applies to the throw-in in case there is a foul?

BktBallRef: 9-9-1 2011-2012 says Team control and Player Control.
2010-2011 only says Team Control. I believe we discussed in an earlier thread where the wording was inadvertantly changed in the rule book and the 2011-2012 is an error.
The OP is no BC due to neither Player nor Team control exists.

Basically all you need to know is that we handle plays, as it relates to backcourt violations, three second count and 10 second count the exact same way as before. The purpose of adding team control to include throw-ins was to not award bonus free throws if the throw-in team commits a foul.

Ignorance Is Not Bliss ...
 

I pity the 2011-12 rookie official.

TC does exist. TC does not end when the throw-in is released. It is not a BC violation because player control had not yet been established.

Partner yesterday said he was corrected by varsity officials after letting a play go. A2 tips the throw in into the bc where A3 retrieves it.

Some people are only reading the highlights of the rule changes.

Sorry to bring this back
 

but just to be clear, the above play where A2 tips throwin into b/c and A3 touches IS a violation??.. since throw in exception (9.9.1. E) does NOT apply?

You're right in that the throw-in exception does not apply, but it is not a violation as no player control had been established first. Just judge these throw-in plays like you would have last year.

No, it's not.

Before this season, there was no team control established (in this play) until A3 controls the ball in the BC. When they added TC to the throw in, they (the rules committee) made it clear the BC rule was not supposed to change in application. To do this, they added the requirement for PC to be established in the FC (this changes a few other plays by literal reading, but that's another issue), so the play in question is still not a violation. The exception was never relevant to this play.

The end of the exception only applies to an airborne player jumping from the FC, catching the ball (establishing FC status and TC at the same time), and landing in the BC. This would always have been a violation without the exception.

Got it now, I think. Thanks.