Team Control Rule
 

Got my book yesterday, and I noticed they seem to have reverted the Back Court rule to the way it was before they started messing with team control. However, they have not changed the TC rule at all, so now, by a strict reading of the rule, there are lots of violations that were not intended to by violations.

Such as a throw in that is tipped by A2, standing in the FC, into the BC before it's retrieved by A3. By 9-9-1, this should be a violation.

Am I missing something?

Don't have the new book, could you post the new Back Court language?

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.

Highlighted changes in red.

Adam, take a look at NFHS 4-13-1 – the definition of frontcourt:

...add in 4-35-2

…and it clears up the throw-in problem. Of course an edit to the rule book would definitely make life easier but frontcourt – or backcourt for that matter – doesn’t appear to officially include the area outside the boundary lines.

Right, but that's not the problem. The problem is:

TC established: check, as soon as the throw in starts
FC established: check, as soon as A2 tips the ball (standing in the FC)
Last to touch in the FC before it goes into the BC: Check, A2's tip.
First to touch after it goes into the BC: Check, when A3 retrieves ball in BC.

By rule, this is a violation. By repeated expressed intent, it is not.

Stupid NFHS ...
 

... and also by past history. But how does a rookie know that?

Sorry I ignored some of the elements in my previous answer. Let’s try this:

4-12-2d
A team is in control of the ball when a player of the team has disposal of the ball for a throw-in.

4-42-5a
The throw-in ends when the passed ball touches or is legally touched by another player inbounds.

So when the ball is touched by A2 on the throw-in, the throw-in is over. If A2 didn’t gain control of the ball there’s no team control for the purpose of calling violations so if the ball rolls into the backcourt and A3 picks it up the play is legal. The TC rule on the throw-in only covers penalties applied to fouls.

I found this on the web from the NFHS’s 2011-12 rule interpretations. The scenario is slightly different but the essence is the same:

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)

And the rule changed so that "player control in the front court" is no longer required. It was always a clunky way around it anyway. But, the fact is, relying on old interpretations and powerpoint presentations is a horrible way to get proper enforcement. As Billy notes, rookies aren't going to have access to those things online.

Further, veterans don't always pay attention, and some just read the rules to get updates. When they read this rule, they'll rightly consider this a violation.

It never has. That's why 3-seconds doesn't apply during a throw-in, etc.


Sure, the throwin is over, but TC hasn't ended (see 4-12-3).

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

According to the interpretation TC for the purpose of calling a TC foul doesn’t end when a player on Team A tips the ball. However TC for the purpose of calling violations hasn’t started because neither team has established control inbounds.

Believe me, I know it’s convoluted but that’s what I found consistently in all of the online results.

In this scenario, yes. When the ball is touched inbounds Team A has to re-establish control for violations to come into play again.

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.

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?

Right.

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

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

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

Hey You Kids, Get Off Of My Front Court ...
 

Agree.

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.

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.

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

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).

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)

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.

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. . .

offensive fouls
 

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.