I'm Not Angry, I'm Disappointed (Backcourt and Team Control)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I disagree. The throw in legally ended when it was tipped, however, the tip doesn't mean there was team control, or player control of the ball in the front court.

4-12-3: Team control continues until:
a. The ball is in flight during a try or tap for goal
b. An opponent secures control.
c. The ball becomes dead.

4-4-1: A ball which is in contact with a player or with the court is in the backcourt if either the ball or the player (either player if the ball is touching more than one) is touching the backcourt.

PC control of the ball in the FC is never relevant.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Adam

4-12-3: Team control continues until:
a. The ball is in flight during a try or tap for goal
b. An opponent secures control.
c. The ball becomes dead.

4-4-1: A ball which is in contact with a player or with the court is in the backcourt if either the ball or the player (either player if the ball is touching more than one) is touching the backcourt.

PC control of the ball in the FC is never relevant.

My bad, I was looking at the case book, 4-12-3,B.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

4-12-3: Team control continues until:
a. The ball is in flight during a try or tap for goal
b. An opponent secures control.
c. The ball becomes dead.

4-4-1: A ball which is in contact with a player or with the court is in the backcourt if either the ball or the player (either player if the ball is touching more than one) is touching the backcourt.

PC control of the ball in the FC is never relevant.

That is all good assuming you accept that true team control exists on the throw in and not some limited version of team control. The rule certainly doesn't clarify that but the published intent of the rule does effectively establish two types of team control.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That is all good assuming you accept that true team control exists on the throw in and not some limited version of team control. The rule certainly doesn't clarify that but the published intent of the rule does effectively establish two types of team control.

Yep, and for those of us who read the published intent, it's pretty simple. For those who simply read the rules, though, there is no such distinction. Not only does the rule not clarify that, it's actually pretty clearly written in a way that means the opposite of what they intended.

If they're going to rule by case play, they should simply note in the ruling of the case play what you're saying here: TC during a throw-in is only intended to affect foul situations, and all violation calls should consider TC inactive until PC is established inbounds.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

And, there are going to be some who take the wording and try to apply it to "a1 from the BC throws the ball that hits the referee in the FC and rebounds to be BC where A2 recovers."

They are going to claim "no TC in the FC" (which is, of course, false, but it's the same concept as on the case)

Exactly, and the rules give us no means by which we can distinguish between the two situations.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by OKREF

2014-15 points of emphasis.

4. Team Control Status During Throw In: Since a 2011-12 rules change, team control exists during a throw-in when the thrower-in has the ball at his/her disposal. The change was made ONLY, to eliminate the penalty of administering free throw(s) when a teammate of the throw-in commits a common foul during the throw-in. The change made the penalty consistent with the penalty for other team control fouls. The penalty now is the awarding of a throw-in to the opposing team at the spot out-of-bounds nearest to where the foul occurred.

NOTE: Team control during a throw-in is not intended to be equated to player control status inbounds which creates team control status inbounds. During the throw-in, 10 seconds, 3-seconds, frontcourt status, backcourt status, closely guarded, etc... are not factors as there has yet to be player control/team control status obtained inbounds. Page 70 Rulebook.

There shouldn't be any debate anymore. This makes it pretty clear.

Originally Posted by Adam

Yep, and for those of us who read the published intent, it's pretty simple. For those who simply read the rules, though, there is no such distinction. Not only does the rule not clarify that, it's actually pretty clearly written in a way that means the opposite of what they intended.

If they're going to rule by case play, they should simply note in the ruling of the case play what you're saying here: TC during a throw-in is only intended to affect foul situations, and all violation calls should consider TC inactive until PC is established inbounds.



Exactly, and the rules give us no means by which we can distinguish between the two situations.

Yes it does. Page 70 rule book.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Adam

Exactly, and the RULES give us no means by which we can distinguish between the two situations.

Originally Posted by OKREF

Yes it does. Page 70 rule book.

No, it doesn't.

There are no RULES on page 70.

If it's published in the RULES, then it will be published each and every year.

Points of Emphasis change every year, so this is NOT a fix.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

No, it doesn't.

There are no RULES on page 70.

If it's published in the RULES, then it will be published each and every year.

Points of Emphasis change every year, so this is NOT a fix.

It clearly tells you what the intent of the rule is.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by OKREF

It clearly tells you what the intent of the rule is.

And it will be gone next year. It is still messed up.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

It clearly tells you what the intent of the rule is.

I agree that the intent of the rule is very clear. It was clear when the rule was changed to give a TC foul during a throw-in, but it would be nice if the entire rule was changed to reflected the actual language of the rules better. It is a minor fix, but not the fix to stop people from reading into the rule improperly.

And as stated, unless they make this a POE every year, this is going to cause potentially some confusion moving forward.

Peace