Team Control Rule

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Doesn't the team control aspect on a throw in, (which was changed just a few years back), only really apply to fouls on the offense? We no longer shoot free throws, when at one time we did. A tipped ball on the throw in isn't possession, it just means that the throw in ended. If A2 touches the throw in and the ball goes into the backcourt, and A3 gains possession, the only thing I have is a 10 second count.

That's the intent, but it's not what a lieteral reading of the rules seems to say (according to some).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Doesn't the team control aspect on a throw in, (which was changed just a few years back), only really apply to fouls on the offense? We no longer shoot free throws, when at one time we did. A tipped ball on the throw in isn't possession, it just means that the throw in ended. If A2 touches the throw in and the ball goes into the backcourt, and A3 gains possession, the only thing I have is a 10 second count.

Agreed, this was the intent. The rule, however, doesn't actually make this distinction anywhere that I can find.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

We need to distinguish between touching and controlling? A touch does not cause a BC Vio whereas Control would?

No, "control" is not required for a violation.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

... Veterans don't always pay attention ...

Agree.

Originally Posted by Adam

... Veterans just read the rules to get updates.

Read the rules? Then you've got a better veterans in your association than in mine. In Connecticut, we've just about decided to make the new sleeve rule tougher by saying that both bands (head, and wrist) and sleeves (arm, and leg) must be the same color for all players on the team, in direct opposition to the latest NFHS interpretations. Why? To make it easier for our members, especially our veteran members, to understand.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

So team control continues after a throwin if a tipped pass by A1 (or B1 for that matter) goes into the backcourt. This is because tema control only ends with a dead ball, a shot, or change of posession, right?

No. The intent for the rule is to have team control for the purposes of fouls during the throw in. The throw in ends when it was touched, however neither team was in possession of the ball. Team control is established after either team gains control of the ball. The way it is written, is what is causing the confusion. It is a very poorly written rule.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by OKREF

No. The intent for the rule is to have team control for the purposes of fouls during the throw in. The throw in ends when it was touched, however neither team was in possession of the ball. Team control is established after either team gains control of the ball. The way it is written, is what is causing the confusion. It is a very poorly written rule.

Close but not quite. The TC rule also allows for TC fouls immediately after the throw-in, and before A gains PC inbounds.

You are correct that the first year this was in place, if A fouled before the throw-in ended it was a TC foul, but if they fouled after the ball had been tipped it was NOT a TC foul, and if they fouled after A gained posession inbounds it was again a TC foul. That has been cleared up so that all three are TC fouls now.

The problem is with the wording of the BC rule.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Close but not quite. The TC rule also allows for TC fouls immediately after the throw-in, and before A gains PC inbounds.

Correct. I wrote team control earlier, but meant player control.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by APG

ART. 1

A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, or if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

I think they just dropped "player control" from the part in blue (but I don't have last year's books handy to check the exact wording)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think they just dropped "player control" from the part in blue (but I don't have last year's books handy to check the exact wording)

That's my recollection, previously they had added "after player control has been established in the front court" in order to try to make up for the earlier start for team control. Instead, that wording removed a few plays from being violations. A few here had advocated returning the BC rule to the original wording and simply adding a throw in situation to the definition of a team control foul. It wouldn't be any different, really, than adding the airborne shooter to the definition of a player control foul (even though there's no longer player control).

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

That's my recollection, previously they had added "after player control has been established in the front court" in order to try to make up for the earlier start for team control....

I don't believe the bolded part was in the rule b/c that isn't necessary for a backcourt violation. PC could be established in the backcourt followed by any number of events that could lead to a BC violation without there ever being PC in the FC.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I don't believe the bolded part was in the rule b/c that isn't necessary for a backcourt violation. PC could be established in the backcourt followed by any number of events that could lead to a BC violation without there ever being PC in the FC.

I think it was, and yes, that led to some of the confusion. Even the current wording could cause some of the same confusion because you need TC, and you need the ball in the FC but you don't need "TC-in-the-FC" (as some would interpret it)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I don't believe the bolded part was in the rule b/c that isn't necessary for a backcourt violation. PC could be established in the backcourt followed by any number of events that could lead to a BC violation without there ever being PC in the FC.

They had added it to the book because without it, that throw in play we keep bringing up would have been a violation. To "fix" that effect, they added the requirement. It inadvertently changed the rule even more, eliminating some violations (by rule) that didn't require FC PC.

[Scrapper1]

The Rules Committee could eliminate ALL this confusion by simply removing team control from the throw-in. They've screwed this up seven ways to Sunday, from the very first attempt they made to eliminate free throws for fouls committed during a throw-in by the throw-in team.

Last year, they finally got the Team Control Foul definition correct. This year, they finally got 9-9-1 correct. Now, if they will just revert the definition of team control to what it was 4 years ago. . .

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

The Rules Committee could eliminate ALL this confusion by simply removing team control from the throw-in. They've screwed this up seven ways to Sunday, from the very first attempt they made to eliminate free throws for fouls committed during a throw-in by the throw-in team.

Last year, they finally got the Team Control Foul definition correct. This year, they finally got 9-9-1 correct. Now, if they will just revert the definition of team control to what it was 4 years ago. . .

I agree. IMO it would be less confusing if the rule read "all fouls by the team on offense (-INT and FLAG) will result in no free throws." A team would be considered "on offense" when a player gains control of the jump ball, when the ball is at disposal on a FT and TI or on a change in possession. A team is no longer on offense when there is a change in possession, the ball is dead or on the release of a try.