[joseph2493]

I don't have my books in front of me, so I'm unable to quote section numbers, except as they have been previously quoted in this thread.

But whichever section it is that talks about the airborne player starting from front court..., that is the exception I am talking about. Yes, it is a rule. But it doesn't stand alone. It creates an exception to the general rule governing the backcourt violation.

4-43 (FWIW, rules cites use dashes, case cites use dots) is a rule governing the traveling violation. It talks about which foot is the pivot foot. It is also the rule that makes the jump stop legal. It has nothing to do with backcourt violations. In the situation given, the player would definitely not be guilty of a traveling violation.

It is my interpretation that in the situation given, you have team control by a player in the front court, you do not have a "normal landing," and he ends up in back court. I think we have a violation here. [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm not trying to beat this up, I just wanted you understand that it was just my interpretation and that nowhere in the book does it have an exact quote.

I went out to my truck after reading your last post and got my books to find something and have been unable to do so.

The rule about the one foot in the front court second in the back is on page 58 in the Rule Book. Rule 9 Section 9 Art. 3.

If I find any hard evidence either way I'll let you know.