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

[Adam]

Got my book in the mail yesterday. They did not, of course, fix the problem with the team control and it's impact on the backcourt calls in the immediate aftermath of a throw in.

By a strict reading of the rule, some very standard plays should be called violations. Unless, of course, one happens to read the handouts or the old notices, and knows differently.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Adam

Got my book in the mail yesterday. They did not, of course, fix the problem with the team control and it's impact on the backcourt calls in the immediate aftermath of a throw in.

By a strict reading of the rule, some very standard plays should be called violations. Unless, of course, one happens to read the handouts or the old notices, and knows differently.

Are you suggesting that 4-12-3c is insufficient, needing perhaps the words "for purposes of determining the consequences of a foul by the throw-in team", or something to that effect? Would you agree with that?

Did you notice how the new 4.12.2B seems to try to make up for whatever might still be lacking in the rulebook? Do you agree with all that?

They did take the "or" out of 9-9-1, which clarified that somewhat, or at least made the mud clearer. Do you agree with that?

(I'm still ticked off at "predominant color of the uniform" in 3-5-3b and 3-5-4a, and the obvious error in 3.5.4 if they're gonna dictate 3-5-3b and 3-5-4a. Not merely disappointed. Papa-Oscar'ed.)

[Adam]

No, there are two options:
1. Return the definition of team control to what it was, and change the definition of a team control foul to include a foul committed by the throw in team from the start of the throw in until team control is established.

2. Put a note in the BC rule itself. Something to the effect of, "Following a throw in, BC restrictions do not begin until player control has been established in bounds."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

No, there are two options:
1. Return the definition of team control to what it was, and change the definition of a team control foul to include a foul committed by the throw in team from the start of the throw in until team control is established.

2. Put a note in the BC rule itself. Something to the effect of, "Following a throw in, BC restrictions do not begin until player control has been established in bounds."

Agreed. I noticed this too and was not happy about it as well. But the intent of the rule is clear, but it would be nice if the rules clearly reflected that as well.

Peace

[Adam]

The intent is clear for those who know it. Newer officials don't necessarily have access to all that. And veterans who only pay half attention sometimes will read a rule a few years after it comes out and will notice team control now exists on a throw in and they'll think, "hey, this now affects a throw in." I've seen it, and "yeah, but they said in an email" isn't going to help.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Did you notice how the new 4.12.2B seems to try to make up for whatever might still be lacking in the rulebook? Do you agree with all that?

It may help, but....
The wording of the ruling leaves a lot to be desired, though.

...There is no backcourt violation in (b) since team control had not yet been established in team A's frontcourt before the ball went into Team A's backcourt.

This is a false statement, as by rule, team control has been established in team A's front court (when it was tipped by A2).

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Adam

It may help, but....
The wording of the ruling leaves a lot to be desired, though.



This is a false statement, as by rule, team control has been established in team A's front court (when it was tipped by A2).

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.

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I'm still ticked off at "predominant color of the uniform" in 3-5-3b and 3-5-4a, and the obvious error in 3.5.4 if they're gonna dictate 3-5-3b and 3-5-4a.

3.5.4 SITUATION: Team A’s school colors are blue and gold and the predominate
color of Team A’s jerseys are white. Prior to the game, an official notices that
several Team A members are wearing (a) blue headbands and blue wristbands; or
(b) beige pre-wrap around the entire head and blue wristbands. RULING: Legal in
(a). Illegal equipment in (b); the headband color does not match the wristband
color. The official shall inform the player and the head coach that these items are
illegal and may not be worn during the game.

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Adam

It may help, but....
The wording of the ruling leaves a lot to be desired, though.



This is a false statement, as by rule, team control has been established in team A's front court (when it was tipped by A2).

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)

[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.