backcourt on a thrown in
 

I apologize if this has been covered before.

Here's the situation.

A1 throw in. A2 tries to grab the throw in but can only tip it while standing in front court.

A3 then collects the ball in the back court.

Violation or no?

No, team control must be established in the front court before a back court violation can occur. Tip =/= team control

AremRed is correct, No violation.

This video isn't great, but shows what we are talking about. MSU player receives the throw in and fumbles it into the back court. Bo Boroski calls the violation. Eventually Mike Kitts comes over and discusses it with him (with bonus Ted Valentine!).

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2i__h5I4eHU?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Prefect example of the play....and that some of the big dogs don't really know the rules all that well (but Coach Izzo knew it).

Ah, I just think he was too close to the play. Probably looking at the feet for out of bounds and missed the fumble.

If you insist...but I see it missed more than would be explained by that.

+1

And it's going to get worse with time, I think, as the rule stays the same and the powerpoints fade into the veterans' memory. Eventually, the NFHS will decide to just issue a case play making this a violation. After all, everyone is already calling it that way.

The black official's box out on the coach was hilarious!!!:D:D:D He didn't even have an illegal use of hands. Bwahahahah!!:D

definition: fumble 4-21
 

AremRed, if it was a fumble (by definition) then it would be a violation, right?
Perhaps "muffed or bobbled" would be a better word.

+1

I have always been under the impression, from watching him on tv and hearing him speak at numerous camps, that Boroski is a pretty solid rules guy. I would have liked to hear the conversation that made him change his mind on this call because I think an argument can be made that the MSU player controlled the ball in the front court. He had 2 hands on the ball before he dropped it and it went into the backcourt.

Thanks all. It'd be helpful if the NFHS book actually stated when team control inbounds starts on a throw in.

Maybe sort of off-topic, but is there such a thing as a controlled tip that would count as team control. So for example, lets say that the throw in from A1 is off target and heading out of bounds untouched. A2, in the front court "saves" the ball from going out of bounds by intentionally tapping it to A3 who is in the back court. Could this be considered team control by A2 (and thus a backcourt violation when touched by A3) if it was clear that the tap was a controlled pass?

Team control, for the purposes of backcourt or 3 second violations, is established at the same time as player control...by holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds. A tip, no matter how controlled, is not either of those.

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?

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.

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), ....

Stuck In A Loop ...
 

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:

Or, just pull out your Funk & Wagnalls.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

One more look?
 

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. :confused:

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.

Seems like it. But what they have effectively done is create two team controls....and created a lot of confusion in the process.

"team control" begins at disposal on the throwin and continues until the ball is secured by the opposing team or a try is released. "team control" is only used to determine how to administer a foul.

The other one "TEAM CONTROL" begins only when a player of a team has player control inbounds. It also continues until the other team secures control or a try is released. This "TEAM CONTROL" is used to determine when a violation has occurred.

Separate But Equal ...
 

Bingo. Give that man a cigar.