Violation: yes or no?

[westneat]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Read number 5 again -- especially the last sentence:

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.

Situation 4 makes the same point.

Got it. Thanks.

Is this point only available through prior years interpretations?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by westneat

Got it. Thanks.

Is this point only available through prior years interpretations?

It's one of the complications with the way they added to the team control definition.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by westneat

Got it. Thanks.

Is this point only available through prior years interpretations?

My opinion is that it would be nice if a more clearly defined criteria for when a 10-second count starts was put in words in the rule book.

When the rule was written, there was no team control during a throw-in at the HS level, so the "continuously in team control" phrase made sense. Now it's convoluted with the addition of TC fouls on throw-ins.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

My opinion is that it would be nice if a more clearly defined criteria for when a 10-second count starts was put in words in the rule book.

When the rule was written, there was no team control during a throw-in at the HS level, so the "continuously in team control" phrase made sense. Now it's convoluted with the addition of TC fouls on throw-ins.

They've tried to do this by interpretation. The problem is, interps fade over time. I'm already talking to veteran officials, association leadership, who are insisting that, by rule, the throwin that is tipped by A in the FC and recovered by A in the BC is a violation.

westneat is correct in that the rule itself has this as a violation: but the NFHS was clear when they added TC to the throw in that they did not want it to apply to anything except whether you shoot FTs on a given foul.

The need to change the TC rule back, and then simply change the penalties to state that a foul committed by the throw in team does not result in FTs. Maybe include that in the definition of a TC foul, even though there's no TC. This wouldn't be any different than a PC foul that can be charged even when there's no PC. I believe this was Bob's suggestion.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Adam

The need to change the TC rule back, and then simply change the penalties to state that a foul committed by the throw in team does not result in FTs.

Agree 100%. In fact, I've lobbied the current and previous Rules Committee members from my region to do exactly that. It's gotten nowhere. (What makes it worse is that the current committee member is an official.)

Maybe include that in the definition of a TC foul, even though there's no TC.

They've already (kind of, almost) done this. They included the inbounder in the definition of team control foul (4-19-7). The rule could be made a little clearer, and then just eliminate team control during the throw-in. I wish they would do this and eliminate all this confusion and contradiction.

[westneat]

Originally Posted by Adam

They've tried to do this by interpretation. The problem is, interps fade over time. I'm already talking to veteran officials, association leadership, who are insisting that, by rule, the throwin that is tipped by A in the FC and recovered by A in the BC is a violation.

westneat is correct in that the rule itself has this as a violation: but the NFHS was clear when they added TC to the throw in that they did not want it to apply to anything except whether you shoot FTs on a given foul.

The need to change the TC rule back, and then simply change the penalties to state that a foul committed by the throw in team does not result in FTs. Maybe include that in the definition of a TC foul, even though there's no TC. This wouldn't be any different than a PC foul that can be charged even when there's no PC. I believe this was Bob's suggestion.

Worse, unless it's in the book, how can I justify a call that looks like it directly contradicts the rulebook?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by westneat

Worse, unless it's in the book, how can I justify a call that looks like it directly contradicts the rulebook?

You won't have to -- at least for a while.

This is one of the (rare) times when "what everyone knows" is correct.

Note that the NCAA rule is a little different -- the shot-clock starts when the ball is touched and when it gets to 20/25, it's a violation -- even if there was never PC in the BC. (generic statement only, for the usual situation; I recognize there are exceptions.) So, once people get used to that, then you might have some explaining to do, if FED doesn't clarify.

[Rob1968]

Unfortunately, the great majority of HS officials that I see, start the 10 second count upon the first touching of the ball, rather than control.

[CountTheBasket]

Did some men's "wreck" last night to try and make up a few dollars since my last FIVE HS games were cancelled. Had a play where white got a rebound and then lost the ball in transition still in the backcourt. A player from Red dove on the ground and had one hand firmly pinning the the ball to the ground near the mid-court line, but clearly in Red's frontcourt. He then put his other hand on the ground to push himself up, but put it down in the backcourt. I blew for a backcourt violation and then thought about this thread instantly and wondered if maybe I jumped the gun because it seemed to me the consensus here was that one hand pinning the ball to the ground is not control.