Team control, throw-in, IW
 

Team A's throw-in hits the underside of the basket. An official blows an IW.

Administer the aftermath.

POI is the throw-in...readminster.

Throw-in never ended as it was not legally touched.

Team A's ball for the throw-in.

I either agree with either APG or tjones1, depending on whom I like better today.

Does that matter? ;)

On this note, I was working a scrimmage last Friday night. I was the Lead and administering the throw-in in the frontcourt on the endline. The thrower went to throw the ball to a teammate and it hit the bottom (From what I could tell) of the backboard and came down in bounds on the court, where one of the players on the court grabbed it. I wasn't going call a violation because it looked like it came straight down, leading me to believe that it hit the bottom of the backboard and not the back. It also landed in bounds. My partner comes in after a brief delay and says that it was a violation. At the next break I asked him about it and he said that when it hit, it angled back toward the endline so it must have hit the back of the backboard. I told him that it landed in bounds and from my angle it went straight down so I would have left it alone. We agreed to disagree and went on.

I remember people talking about this on here before. If it doesn't come straight down after hitting the backboard do you guys always assume it hit the back?

If it goes back, it hit the back.

Whether it went back is, of course, judgment.

Fixed it! :)

Still doesn't matter. Even in the throw-in had ended, you'd still give the ball to A (although the spot might now be different from the original spot). A still has team control.

Team control on a throw-in, huh? ;) Yeah, I'm a little slow this morning.

I would of been right two years ago though. lol

Thanks, Bob.

Is the corner of the padding on the bottom of the backboard considered the back?

The rule of thumb is to see where the ball goes. If the ball rebounds back out of bounds then the ball probably hit the back. If the ball goes down as in the OP the ball probably hit the bottom. If the ball hits the back it should be obvious to everyone -- otherwise just play on.

I personally don't think it needs to rebound "back out of bounds". If it hits the court or is touched closer than 4' from the end line (as a general statement -- I'm not trying to get into measuring the diameter of the ball and which part of it hits where), then it hit the back.

Agree. If it does not continue on past the board, then it hit at least some part of the back.

No way I'm coming in to get this from T, regardless of what I saw. (unless it went straight back)

Not sure
 

I'm not sure I understand. Doesn't team control only apply if there is a foul by the throw-in team? My thinking is if the IW occurred after the throw-in hit the bottom edge and before the ball was legally touched then the POI would be a throw-in for Team A not on the basis of team control; but as tjones suggested: the throw-in had not ended. Now, if the ball hits the bottom edge > touches or is touched by a player (throw-in ends) > the IW occurs, POI > go to the AP? Similar to if an IW whistle occurs when a try is in flight > the try is unsuccessful (the try ends) > go to the AP. Help on this would be appreciated.

Honestly, this is a good point. Any speculation on how the NFHS would rule would be, frankly, like rolling dice.

No.

TC does end when a try is in flight.

See 4-12-3

I agree and some really good officials I know have argued the other side.

Absent written instructions, though, we only have the team control rules to go by.

To be honest, that's why I posted the situation in the first place and it was the same thing I was thinking as he came in and called it. I wish he would have left it alone.

It didn't go straight back, it might have gone at a slight angle toward the endline, but not much. I'm pretty sure it hit the corner of the padding on the bottom of the backboard.

Doesn't matter

Matters

I'm sure it did. If it hit only the back, it would have rebounded straight back (and probably "up" as well, initially.) If it hit only the bottom it would have rebounded farther onto the court. The rule doesn't tell us specifically what to do if it hits the corner -- so most of us use the rule I've outlined above -- if it goes back at all it hit "enough" of the back to be a violation.

imo, of course -- and I agree that it's hard to get from T.

AP posession
 

Let me just add one more dynamic to this. A has AP throwin, it hits the bottom of the backboard and IW before it is touched. Does A retain the arrow or does it switch?

Your title....alternating possession possession?

In this case, POI is the AP throw in, so the AP arrow would switch after the second throw in is completed.

Team control only exists during a throw in for the purposes of administrating a foul, even though this is a poorly worded rule. If the throw in hits the back of the backboard. Team B gets the ball. If this is on an AP throw in, won't the arrow switch, team A looses the arrow because of a violation?

Yes

Correct. Throwin violation on A for not throwing it directly onto the court before going OOB.

When does the arrow switch? 6-4-4 and 4-42-5

I'm not sure I agree. Do you have a reference? (It's a convenient "shortcut" to remembering the most usual situations, but I don't think it's universal.)

This part is correct. Same references as above, plus 6-4-5

Question:

AP throw-in; B2 deflects throw-in; ball hits bottom of backboard; inadvertent whistle.

How do we handle this situation?

AP throw-in has ended, so AP arrow changes immediately. But do we still have TC by A, or does TC not apply to throw-in outside of fouls?

Now I know why you call yourself BadNews...LOL

What about not "directly" into the court.
 

I believe we still have a violation because by hitting even the bottom of the backboard , which is inbounds...it did not go 'directly" onto the court.

:eek:

BNR's scenario includes the ball having been thrown "directly onto the court" (it mentions that the ball was deflected by B), thus, no violation.
It seems to me, that there are two choices . . . POI may be considered the throw-in by A, and thus we re-do the throw-in,
or, we treat the scenario as the throw-in having been completed, (when the ball was touched by B) but with no team control having been established on the court, we may go to an AP throw-in.
Presently, I favor the latter. But I'm willing to consider other opinions.

From our state director of officiating, thru the NFHS. We have been told this is the interpretation of the NFHS as well.

If it hits the bottom of the backboard and we have an IW, it goes back to the AP throw in. The throw in has not been completed, and this isn't a violation. The arrow will change when the throw in has ended.

I agree, if the ball went directly from thrower-in A to the bottom of the backboard, but the scenario posed by BNR has the ball being deflected by B, and then hitting the bottom of the backboard. I understand that the throw-in ended when the ball was "deflected by B."

I didn't catch his scenario. If the throw in ended, which it does when it is legally touched by B, the arrow changes then, and there is an IW and no team control exists then you go to the AP, which would be team B ball.

Got this from the 2011-12 Rulebook.

2011-12 Rules changes
Several definitions were changed to reflect that team control now exists during a throw-in when the thrower-in has the ball at his/her disposal. The change primarily affects how foul penalties will be administered.

Not saying you're wrong, and I do understand what you're saying. Just know how we have been instructed to apply the rule.

"Primarily" <> "only".

My guess is that the play(s) in this thread were not considered when someone decided to give additional guidance. Stil, "when in Rome..."

My take: The AP throwin has ended, but TC has not. Give the ball back to A, but the arrow is now with B so if there's a foul before the next throw-in ends, B still has the arrow.

I agree with this. They wanted to address fouls and created more confusion by doing so.

I can see this point. Maybe I'm wrong. Will have to find out what our rules interpreter says.

So, the issue is whether the TC in regards to the throw-in ends with the end of the throw-in, or if it persists until TC is established on the floor, whether by the throw-in team or the opponent?
If I'm understanding this correctly, if TC by the throw-in team ends when the throw-in ends, (that is, when the deflection by B occurs) and the deflection doesn't constitute TC by the opponent, then an AP should follow the IW. And, if TC for the throw-in persists until either team establishes TC on the floor, the IW would result in a throw-in for the original throw-in team.

Were you working w/Ed HighTower?:D

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 ...

That's what I was going to say. IW and ball should go back to A.

We're not taking a test here.

another hypothetical
 

Say the possession arrow points to B, and A1 throws a long pass to a streaking A2 for an easy lay-up. But, before A2 can get a hand on the ball, we have an IW.

Anyone up for giving the ball to B?

Whether team control during a TI applies or not, an IW can be extremely unfair to one team or the other.

Throw-in did not end prior to IW, so POI is throw-in.

Why would we give the ball to B? In your scenario we've already screwed up by most likely taking two points away from Team A on the IW. Now we'd be compounding the error by taking the ball away from Team A through the AP arrow. You think that's fair? At that point just finish the play by immediately calling a T on Team A's coach because that's the next thing that's going to happen.

Don't make a screw-up worse by making stuff up, especially stuff that isn't supported by rule.

One more try...
 

Maybe I don't understand all of this thread. Help me out.

Say the possession arrow points to B, and A1 throws a long pass to a streaking A2 for an easy lay-up. A2 touches, but has not yet controlled the ball when an IW happens.

What is the call then?

TI has ended. If team control during TI applies only for the purpose of team control fouls, there is no team control in bounds yet.

And this is where the debate lies. For me, until the NFHS clarifies this particular situation, I'm going with the written rule. By rule, TC continues after the throw in. The NFHS has made it clear they don't want it applying to BC violations, but that's an exception to the rule.

Put me in the camp that TC applies until the defending team gains possession and that there is a special exception that only allows BC violations after PC has been gained inbounds.

This is deeper than just the debate about team control. In the OP, assuming the ball hit the bottom of the board, this should have been nothing, but was called a violation. But now what to do if this incorrect whistle sounds a split second before the ball is grabbed out of the air by team B? I'm gonna let the incorrectly called violation stand rather than change it to an accidental whistle and give the ball back to A.

there's a play in the NCAAW case book. I think it's also in the NCAAM book. A1 jumps from inbouds, grabs the ball and is about to land out of bounds. A1 requests a TO, and the official blows the whistle. (For those who don't know, in NCAA, the TO should NOT be granted in this case).

Ruling: IW, give the ball back to A, even though the "logical and obvious" conclusion of the play if there was no whistle would be a violation on A and the ball to B.

I don't see that as much different from the IW when B is about to grab the ball after it hits the bottom of the backboard, or any of the other plays that have been presented here to show why the IW rule might be "unfair."

This is never a good philosophy. When officials start making judgments as to what is fair/not fair and using that as the basis for the calls they make, only bad things can happen.

Simple Arithmetic ???
 

Agree. When I'm put into a position where I have to make another wrong to make the original wrong a right, I don't. I just suck it up and go with the rulebook. That way I only have to make one apology to a coach, athletic director, player, assignment commissioner, partner, etc., not two apologies.

Sometimes life isn't fair, and sometimes the rules of basketball aren't fair either.

And this is why the part is in front of the book about intent and purpose of the rules and a team not being given an advantage which is not intended by a rule. I don't believe it was intended to give the ball back to the wrong team because of an official's mistake. Sometimes it can't be helped. In this case it can.

Using Everything At Our Disposal ...
 

Good point, playing the old "intent and purpose" card.

But this is the part that concerned me, and maybe I was reading it wrong:

I'm not unilaterally going to change the original violation call. I am going to get together with my partner, and the coaches, use 2-3, and the "intent and purpose of the rules", to come up with a correct decision, in line with all the rules in the rulebook, including the one that just another ref pointed out. I'm not going to make a second mistake, any followup to the first mistake will be by the book, the entire book, and nothing but the book, so help me God.

If possible, I always go with the rule book. If that means an inadvertent whistle, then so be it. By doing so I have solid reasons for my decision. By assuming things, I'm leaving myself open for more questions from coaches, observers, etc.

Here's what I say..

"I'm sorry, I made a mistake. By rule, this is how things go from there. I know it's not ideal, but it's the way things have to go."

Whoever I say that to many not be happy, but they can't argue against the rule book. At least not to me.