Team control, throw-in, IW

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

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?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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?

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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?

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"

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Fair enough.

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

[just another ref]

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?