Backcourt violation on throw-in?

[jdmara]

Just curious what you all thought about the following. One of them is obvious

Throw-in by Team A in their backcourt, near the division line. Pass made into the backcourt and is caught by an airborne A5 (who jumped from A's frontcourt and lands in their backcourt). Ruling?

Throw-in by Team A in their backcourt, near the division line. Pass made into the backcourt, tipped by B1 (who is guarding the thrower), and is caught by an airborne A5 (who jumped from A's frontcourt and lands in their backcourt). Ruling?

-Josh

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jdmara

Just curious what you all thought about the following. One of them is obvious

Throw-in by Team A in their backcourt, near the division line. Pass made into the backcourt and is caught by an airborne A5 (who jumped from A's frontcourt and lands in their backcourt). Ruling?

Play on.

Originally Posted by jdmara

Throw-in by Team A in their backcourt, near the division line. Pass made into the backcourt, tipped by B1 (who is guarding the thrower), and is caught by an airborne A5 (who jumped from A's frontcourt and lands in their backcourt). Ruling?

Violation.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by jdmara

Just curious what you all thought about the following. One of them is obvious

Throw-in by Team A in their backcourt, near the division line. Pass made into the backcourt and is caught by an airborne A5 (who jumped from A's frontcourt and lands in their backcourt). Ruling?

Throw-in by Team A in their backcourt, near the division line. Pass made into the backcourt, tipped by B1 (who is guarding the thrower), and is caught by an airborne A5 (who jumped from A's frontcourt and lands in their backcourt). Ruling?

-Josh

Actually, they are both obvious, because they've been discussed before, and they both have to do with the same rule, 9-9-3. The first play is legal, due to 9-9-3, and the fact that it is during a throw-in. The second play is a violation, due to the throw-in ending when B1 touched the ball. This second play was also part of the NFHS's interps at the beginning of last season, I believe.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

This second play was also part of the NFHS's interps at the beginning of last season, I believe.

You are correct.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Actually, they are both obvious, because they've been discussed before, and they both have to do with the same rule, 9-9-3. The first play is legal, due to 9-9-3, and the fact that it is during a throw-in. The second play is a violation, due to the throw-in ending when B1 touched the ball. This second play was also part of the NFHS's interps at the beginning of last season, I believe.

Well darn...I guess I missed that discussion somehow. I can honestly say (but sheepishly so) that I wouldn't have called the second one a violation I guess that is why is never hurts to read the casebooks and other materials before the season starts.

-Josh

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by tjones1

You are correct.

And sadly they didn't repair the damage this season.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by jdmara

Well darn...I guess I missed that discussion somehow. I can honestly say (but sheepishly so) that I wouldn't have called the second one a violation I guess that is why is never hurts to read the casebooks and other materials before the season starts.

-Josh

Unfortunately, this wasn't something you would find in the rule or case books. I believe the only place it was seen was on the NFHS website, under 2007-08 interpretations. We discussed it here quite a bit before last season started; you might try to a search on the forum to see if you can find it.

[Nevadaref]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdmara
Well darn...I guess I missed that discussion somehow. I can honestly say (but sheepishly so) that I wouldn't have called the second one a violation I guess that is why is never hurts to read the casebooks and other materials before the season starts.

-Josh

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Unfortunately, this wasn't something you would find in the rule or case books. I believe the only place it was seen was on the NFHS website, under 2007-08 interpretations. We discussed it here quite a bit before last season started; you might try to a search on the forum to see if you can find it.

Or he might try 9.9.1 Sit D on page 72 of the 2007-08 Case Book.

[jdmara]

HA! Thanks guys. I was reading through this year's Illustrated and saw it. I guess I missed that last year in the case book as well. Thanks

-Josh