Team Control - Throw In Extension to Court?

[NCHSAA]

There has been constant local debate whether the rule deligating team control on a throw-in was put in place solely for fouls committed during that time, or if it extended team control onto the playing court which would affect backcourt violations, etc.

Any thoughts??

IMO - It does not extend to the playing court once the throw in ends. Team control must be re-established for purposes such as back court violations during front court throw-ins...would appreciate any dialogue!

Thanks

[JRutledge]

I think the NF made this very clear to address only foul situations and even changed language to highlight that fact in the rules.

Peace

[NCHSAA]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think the NF made this very clear to address only foul situations and even changed language to highlight that fact in the rules.

Peace

That is what I thought. However, for some reason our area cannot find it or is reading over it. I have understood the rule from the NCAA side, but heaven forbid if I carry that over into high school to help understand a rule.

I'll keep searching for a nice explanation on the difference, if one exists from the NFHS...Thanks

[JRutledge]

They either need to go back to the comments when the rule was change by the NF or read the publications that addressed this issue. I would have to look it up myself to see the exactly the wording, but I remember this clearly as this was discussed here and in the rulebook. I just do not have it in front of me to give you a specific reference. I am sure someone has it on their computer and will get to it quicker then me.

Peace

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by NCHSAA

There has been constant local debate whether the rule deligating team control on a throw-in was put in place solely for fouls committed during that time, or if it extended team control onto the playing court which would affect backcourt violations, etc.

Any thoughts??

IMO - It does not extend to the playing court once the throw in ends. Team control must be re-established for purposes such as back court violations during front court throw-ins...would appreciate any dialogue!

Thanks

2011-2012 Rules Interps

SITUATION 2: A1 has the ball for an end-line throw-in in his/her frontcourt. The administering official reaches a four-second count when A1 passes the ball to A2, who had been standing in the free-throw lane since A1 had the ball at his/her disposal. RULING: Legal. Even though a team is now in control during a throw-in, the three-second rule specifically requires that a team be in control in its frontcourt for a violation to occur. Technically speaking, the thrower-in is out of bounds and not located in the frontcourt. (4-35-2; 9-7)

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)

SITUATION 4: 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 free-throw line, is high, bounces several times and goes into Team A’s backcourt untouched. 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 in the backcourt and the backcourt count starts as soon as A2 gains control in his/her backcourt. (4-12-2d; 9-9)

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)

[Adam]

This is the problem with the current wording, and their refusal (or inability) after three seasons now to fix the problem. The fix was easy, but for whatever reason, the won't do it. Now, as more years are passing since the rule change, more people will start applying the changes to backcourt violations and such.

That said, Backcourt violations are explicitly excluded within the BC rule. It now says PC status must be established in bounds before a violation can be called after a throw-in (I don't think it actually says "after a throw-in", but that was their intent).

[JRutledge]

It usually takes the NF three good years to change a rule to have all the elements follow their complete intention. The same was when in football they brought in the horse-collar foul. For some reason the NF never wants to just adopt NCAA language to make it easy to understand and the officials to understand their clear intentions for a change.

Peace

[NCHSAA]

Originally Posted by Adam

This is the problem with the current wording, and their refusal (or inability) after three seasons now to fix the problem. The fix was easy, but for whatever reason, the won't do it. Now, as more years are passing since the rule change, more people will start applying the changes to backcourt violations and such.

That said, Backcourt violations are explicitly excluded within the BC rule. It now says PC status must be established in bounds before a violation can be called after a throw-in (I don't think it actually says "after a throw-in", but that was their intent).

If the NFHS would word it like the NCAA - problen solved. However, most officials never try to hunt the intent of the rule (memos, internet, etc) and stick to being legalistic with the rulebook and over apply rules, definitions, etc to areas that they should not be applied to. The burden is on them, but the NFHS should help out a little with the wording.

Just my two cents, that is not worth $37 and some change...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by NCHSAA

If the NFHS would word it like the NCAA - problen solved. However, most officials never try to hunt the intent of the rule (memos, internet, etc) and stick to being legalistic with the rulebook and over apply rules, definitions, etc to areas that they should not be applied to. The burden is on them, but the NFHS should help out a little with the wording.

Just my two cents, that is not worth $37 and some change...

You are absolutely right. Even if the NCAA wording was used we would have guys still trying to find a situation that does not perfectly fit. I have real life discussions with those people all the time, no matter what the sport.

Peace

If the NFHS and NCAA intent are the same, someone should collaborate a hybrid rulebook where the superior (NCAA?) language is used.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

If the NFHS and NCAA intent are the same, someone should collaborate a hybrid rulebook where the superior (NCAA?) language is used.

You have to keep in mind a couple of things. The NF makes a big chunk of their money off of sales of rulebooks and other publications. And they are not going to give up their rights to anyone that could take that away. And because of that I think the NF is afraid to take on their language as if to give up their perceived power over their rules. It is like a bill that is written in the House of Representatives looks nothing like the one the Senate may approve in our government. Too many egos and interests to just accept what others might have done better.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by NCHSAA

If the NFHS would word it like the NCAA - problen solved. However, most officials never try to hunt the intent of the rule (memos, internet, etc) and stick to being legalistic with the rulebook and over apply rules, definitions, etc to areas that they should not be applied to. The burden is on them, but the NFHS should help out a little with the wording.

Just my two cents, that is not worth $37 and some change...

Yep, and too many of them just start reading the rule book, and think, "wait a second, this also affects backcourt violations and the ten second count." And then there are the new officials who weren't around for all the ppt slides and meeting discussions.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You have to keep in mind a couple of things. The NF makes a big chunk of their money off of sales of rulebooks and other publications. And they are not going to give up their rights to anyone that could take that away. And because of that I think the NF is afraid to take on their language as if to give up their perceived power over their rules. It is like a bill that is written in the House of Representatives looks nothing like the one the Senate may approve in our government. Too many egos and interests to just accept what others might have done better.

Peace

The difference is (without getting political), the house and senate have to pass identical bills before the president can sign it. That's what the conference committee is for.

And thus endeth today's civics lesson.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

Yep, and too many of them just start reading the rule book, and think, "wait a second, this also affects backcourt violations and the ten second count." And then there are the new officials who weren't around for all the ppt slides and meeting discussions.

There were a few vocal "steamed" members who said this would never be a problem.

[JetMetFan]

It's straight from the 2011-12 NFHS PowerPoint:

*Several definitions were changed to reflect that team control will now exist during a throw-in when the thrower-in has the ball at his/her disposal.
*Under the previous rule, there was no team control during a throw-in.
*The penalty for a common foul committed by the throw-in team after the throw-in had begun resulted in free throws if the offended team was in the bonus.
*This was inconsistent with the penalty for a team-control foul in non-throw-in situations.
*The change primarily affects how foul penalties will be administered.
*By changing the definition of player and team control to include a throw-in, greater consistency in penalty administration for a common foul is achieved.
*The contest will also be expedited by eliminating the delay inherent with administering free throws.
*Only team-control fouls occurring during a throw-in were affected by this change.
*The change does NOT affect any of the following rules:
•Three seconds in the lane
•Traveling/Dribbling
•Backcourt
•Alternating-possession throw-in rules
*Minor edits occurred to some of these rules for clarification.