team control throw-in

[oc]

A–2, while standing in the backcourt, bats A–1’s throw-in into the frontcourt where it hits A–3 and rebounds into the backcourt. A–2 is the first to touch the ball. Official rules this a backcourt violation. Is the official correct?

The correct IAABO answer is No. Rule 4, Section 12, Article 1; Rule 4, Section 12, Article 2; Rule 9, Section 9, Article 1

BUT WHY?
If team control exists on a throw in AND none of the cases in 4-12-3 have been met to END team control. Why was there not team control in the front court?

[APG]

When coming from a throw-in, there must be player control established at some point before there can be a backcourt/three/10 second violation.

[bballref3966]

Despite what the book says, the NFHS has reiterated that until player control has been established in the frontcourt following a throw-in, there cannot be a backcourt violation.

Example from the 2011-2012 Interpretations...

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.

Originally Posted by oc

If team control exists on a throw in

Team control on a throw-in only exists for fouls that occur during the throw-in, not for backcourt violations.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

Despite what the book says, the NFHS has reiterated that until player control has been established in the frontcourt following a throw-in, there cannot be a backcourt violation.
....

Player control does not have to be established in the frontcourt, it can be established in the backcourt.

Example, A1 throw-in to A2, who catches and establishes player control in the backcourt. A2 then throws the ball to A3 in the frontcourt, it bounces off A3's head and A2 touches it while still in the backcourt. You thus have a backcourt violation without ever establishing player control in the frontcourt.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Player control does not have to be established in the frontcourt, it can be established in the backcourt.

Example, A1 throw-in to A2, who catches and establishes player control in the backcourt. A2 then throws the ball to A3 in the frontcourt, it bounces off A3's head and A2 touches it while still in the backcourt. You thus have a backcourt violation without ever establishing player control in the frontcourt.

Correct. The rule takes effect once player control has been established inbounds.

[BillyMac]

The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control (and initial player control
when coming from a throw-in); the ball must have achieved frontcourt status; the team in team control must
be the last to touch the ball before it goes into the backcourt; that same team must be the first to touch after
the ball has been in the backcourt.

[Adam]

Until they fix this wording, this will confuse more and more officials. Eventually, they will likely just make it a violation if they don't fix it in the next year or two.

I've lost hope.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

Until they fix this wording, this will confuse more and more officials.

... especially new officials that weren't familiar with the old wording, which made for a much easier interpretation of this ruling.

New studious "bookworm" officials will be especially confused, because the interpretation doesn't seem to match the written rule.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Adam

Until they fix this wording, this will confuse more and more officials.

What the heck is so confusing about the following ?......

Originally Posted by AremRed

Team control on a throw-in only exists for fouls that occur during the throw-in, not for backcourt violations.

[MD Longhorn]

Nothing confusing about that at all.

Unfortunately - it doesn't say that in the rulebook. The wording in the rulebook is what's confusing - and contradictory to their case plays. Unless someone goes to clinics (or discusses things here), they are likely to miss this one on the court.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Nothing confusing about that at all.

Unfortunately - it doesn't say that in the rulebook. The wording in the rulebook is what's confusing - and contradictory to their case plays. Unless someone goes to clinics (or discusses things here), they are likely to miss this one on the court.

Exactly. And frankly, the longer the rule remains written the way it is, the more veterans are going to start making this mistake. Had an association veteran last year get into the book and thought he discovered an unintended (and unaddressed) change to the TC rules. I'm still not sure if he bought into the whole "but the NFHS has been clear" explanation. I'm not sure I would have....

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... especially new officials that weren't familiar with the old wording, which made for a much easier interpretation of this ruling.

New studious "bookworm" officials will be especially confused, because the interpretation doesn't seem to match the written rule.

Simplified it for you.