4-4-5?
 

"A ball which touches the front faces or edges of the backboard is treated the same as touching the floor inbounds."

English language definitions 4-19-9
 

No. This is a false double vowel.:D

Yea, I know.

Under the old rule:
 

(2010-11) 4.19.7C A1 has the ball for a throw-in. The pass deflects off
A2. As A2 and B2 attempt to retrieve the looose, I mean, loose throw-in pass A2 pushes B2 and is called for a foul. RULING: This is not a team control foul since team control has not been established. (and this would also be true for an AP throw-in) Under the old rule, if an IW occurred after the deflection instead of the foul I don't think there was any other choice but to go to the arrow. 7.5.3 Ruling c. describes an IW while a missed try is in flight but the principle is the same: if there is no team control when the ball becomes dead-go to the arrow. The next year when the TC rule on a throw-in was put in, it was explained that nothing else has changed. As OKREF cited: The change primarily affects how foul penalties will be administered. My guess as to why the word "primarily" was used was to remind that in certain situations at the start of the game or any OT, the new TC rule would also, obviously, establish "control" for the purpose of setting the arrow under the much older AP rule. IMO, I would go by 4-36-2b, POI: "Play shall be resumed by... a throw-in when the interruption occurred DURING this activity or if a team is entitled to such." If the throw-in has ended, I would go with the arrow. I'm not aware of anything under the old rule or exception in the new rule that says the throw-in team is entitled to the ball when an IW follows a deflected TI pass except through the AP procedure.

An IW ALWAYS goes to POI. You quoted part of it (b), why not also use (a) if it applies instead of using (c)?

Anyway, I think (hope) that all sides of this have been explained, and maybe we'll just have to A2D until / unless the FED issues a clarification.

Because I believe 4-36-2a applies to non-throwin situations such as 7.5.3 a) player dribbling and b) ball already inbounded being passed between teammates. (b) in 4-36-2 is for FT's and TI's. But, I agree-both cases have been made and have merit. A clarification would be good from the FED.

Bob, Team Control can't continue after the ball is released on a throw in. If that was the case a tipped ball by a team A player in a front court throw in, that goes into the back court and first touched by team A would result in a back court violation, wouldn't it?

Stupid NFHS ...
 

"Ay, there's the rub." (Hamlet, William Shakespeare)

Yes -- but that's what they've been trying to word around for the past several years. They tried to fix it by adding "player and team control in the front court" to the requirements, but that messes up the "A1 in BC throws a ball that hits a referee in the FC and rebounds to the BC" play, and now they have "after it has been in TC in the FC" to try to fix it. They mean "after it has been in PC inbounds"

Well there was no PC, or TC after the throw in was legally ended, just an IW. Neither team had TC, so go to the arrow, which should have changed after the ball was tipped.

Not trying to pick a fight with you, just engaging in conversation. NFHS just opened a bag of worms by trying to administer offensive fouls consistently and speed up the game.

That's why TC only applies for the purpose of fouls by the offense. Think of it like this. Bush V Gore. The Supreme Court ruling only counted for that one case, and couldn't be applied to any future cases.

This was their stated intent, but they only stated that intent in the context of backcourt violations and counts. A strict reading of the rule has team control continuing until the rule says it ceases; which is not when the TI ends.

Speculating on this specific case is only that, speculation. Since the exception is ambiguous, I'll go with a strict reading and presume TC to continue for consideration of how to apply POI during IWs or DFs.

Fair enough.

But honestly, I wouldn't bet money either way.

We had a sizable discussion a while back about a similar situation. I think sometimes the statement about a team not being provided an advantage not intended by a rule comes into play.

The example given to end the discussion at that time was this:

A1 throws a pass high over the head of A2. As the pass sails out of bounds but well before it touches anything, the official sounds his whistle?

Is there anyone who would give the ball back to A in this situation?

Common Sense ...
 

Will this be on the test? Technically, inadvertent whistle, point of interruption.

After the test, realistically ...