backcourt on a thrown in

[bob jenkins]

Sometimes you need to officiate. If there was control, then it's control. If it was a bat, then it wasn't control. If a TO was requested at the time of the event, would you grant it?

[johnny d]

Your answer is too simplistic Bob. In NCAA-M asking yourself whether or not you would grant a TO in this situation will not help you distinguish the control/no control question. Even if the player has control, he cannot be granted TO if he is airborne and his momentum is going to cause him to land out of bounds or in the backcourt.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Your answer is too simplistic Bob. In NCAA-M asking yourself whether or not you would grant a TO in this situation will not help you distinguish the control/no control question. Even if the player has control, he cannot be granted TO if he is airborne and his momentum is going to cause him to land out of bounds or in the backcourt.

It's a question meant to be used as a rule of thumb to help determine whether control was obtained.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Your answer is too simplistic Bob. In NCAA-M asking yourself whether or not you would grant a TO in this situation will not help you distinguish the control/no control question. Even if the player has control, he cannot be granted TO if he is airborne and his momentum is going to cause him to land out of bounds or in the backcourt.

Same in NCAAW. But, since the thread was all about FED, and since someone who would ask this is not likely to be working college yet (meant with no offense to whoever asked it), ....

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If a TO was requested at the time of the event, would you grant it?

Originally Posted by Adam

It's a question meant to be used as a rule of thumb to help determine whether control was obtained.

It's circular reasoning, the same type that we often see here on the Forum to decide when the ball is at the disposal of a player for a throwin after a made basket. Would you grant a timeout to the opposing team?

This is a better answer:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Sometimes you need to officiate.

Or, just pull out your Funk & Wagnalls.

[constable]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Same in NCAAW. But, since the thread was all about FED, and since someone who would ask this is not likely to be working college yet (meant with no offense to whoever asked it), ....

I work college. But we use FIBA rules up here.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Adam

It's a question meant to be used as a rule of thumb to help determine whether control was obtained.

Perhaps. IMO, using this type of thinking just complicates matters. Instead of trying to remember/apply rules of thumb to situations where they may or may not fit seems like extra work and adding a layer of complexity that could make the decision making process harder. It is much more simple to just know the rule, understand the rule, and make a judgment call.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Same in NCAAW. But, since the thread was all about FED, and since someone who would ask this is not likely to be working college yet (meant with no offense to whoever asked it), ....

I disagree that the whole thread is Fed. It starts out with a general question which doesn't specify rule set, there is a posted video from a NCAA-M game, a statement about the NFHS book not defining player control/when control is established, and then another generalized question.

[HokiePaul]

For what it's worth, I was thinking about NFHS rules. And I apreciate the feedback. The idea about whether or not a TO would be granted does provide a good way to think about it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Perhaps. IMO, using this type of thinking just complicates matters. Instead of trying to remember/apply rules of thumb to situations where they may or may not fit seems like extra work and adding a layer of complexity that could make the decision making process harder. It is much more simple to just know the rule, understand the rule, and make a judgment call.

Then you're free to ignore it. Many officials find it to be a helpful way to understand what "control" means. Knowing the rule doesn't help if you don't know "control" when you see it. Most of us do, and it helps to put it into a context we can more readily understand.

[johnny d]

Thanks, I feel so much better now that I have your blessing to ignore it.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by johnny d

I disagree that the whole thread is Fed. It starts out with a general question which doesn't specify rule set, there is a posted video from a NCAA-M game, a statement about the NFHS book not defining player control/when control is established, and then another generalized question.

I assume any question here is concerning the FED rules unless otherwise stated. I already knew constable worked under the FIBA rule set. But in the last couple of years all talk of BC/FC during a throw-in has been about the FED because of the changes to their TC rule during throw-ins.

[constable]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I assume any question here is concerning the FED rules unless otherwise stated. I already knew constable worked under the FIBA rule set. But in the last couple of years all talk of BC/FC during a throw-in has been about the FED because of the changes to their TC rule during throw-ins.

Perhaps I should have specified.

I was indeed talking about FED. Our high schools in Ontario play FED still ( with IAABO mechanics). All of our other ball ( rep leagues, post secondary, etc ) play with the goofy international rules.

[Hard]

Sorry if this dead horse is already cold, but I'd like to kick it one more time if we could.

Since team control starts when the ball is at the disposal, and continues until the ball is secured by the opposing team, it seems to me that the ball has both front court status and team control when it is touched in the front court. When the player that touched it in the front court is the first to touch in the backcourt it seems to me it has got to be a violation.

I am also thinking that the play illustrated in the video may be the reason the new rule book deletes "player and" from the control requirement.

[Adam]

They made it abundantly clear when they changed the rule that BC violations were not to be included with the rule change.

They've been horrible about making sure everyone knows this, and as time marches, this will become less and less clear unless they update the rule.