This is more complicated than people seem to think.
Let's look at the specific wording of 9-9-3:
. . . A player from the team not in control (defensive player or during a jump ball or throw-in) may legally jump from his/her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt.
There is currently a debate on whether the words in the parenthetical are the ONLY three times that such action is permitted, since they used to be the three exceptions prior to the rewording of the rule, or if they are merely three examples of a player from the team not in control and other occasions of this are also allowed by the now more inclusive wording.
BktBallRef who is basically our backcourt guru has taken the former stance, while I have supported the latter.
Therefore, if we turn to the plays Zoochy inquired about, we get the following differing rulings:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zoochy
4 plays. Legal or violation? And why!!!
(1) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their front court. A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1. A2 jumps from their frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt.
BktBallRef would likely say: Violation because this is not DURING the throw-in. The throw-in ended when B1 touched the ball.
Nevadaref: Legal play as the action was done by a player from the team not in control.
(2) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their backcourt (Team B’s frontcourt).
A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from their frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt.
I not sure of BktBallRef's answer for this one. He might rule the same as in #1, but he might also consider B2 to be a defensive player even though Team A does not have team control during the play and thus rule this a legal play.
Nevadaref: Legal play, same reason as #1.
(3) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their backcourt (Team B’s frontcourt).
A1’s throw-in is intercepted by B1. B1 had jumped from their frontcourt, caught the ball in the air and lands first foot in the frontcourt, second foot in the backcourt.
BktBallRef: Legal play, during a throw-in (might also be a defensive player) and B1 is permitted to make a normal landing and per 9-9-3 it makes no difference which foot lands first or where.
Nevadaref: Legal play the landing is normal and the order of the feet doesn't matter.
(4) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their front court (Team B’s backcourt). A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from their backcourt court, catches the ball in the air and lands first foot in the frontcourt, second foot in the backcourt.
I have no idea what BktBallRef would rule. I'll hope that he shows up and responds to this post.
Nevadaref: I'm not even sure of my own answer on this one. My ruling is that this is a backcourt violation. It is probably splitting hairs, but that's my call. Why? Since B2 jumped from his BACKCOURT rule 9-9-3 does not apply to him as that rule specifies a player jumping from his FRONTCOURT. Likewise, since the player is holding the ball, not dribbling it, 4-4-6 (what we call the three points rule) doesn't apply either. Rules 4-35 and 4-4-2 appear to be controlling. When B2 catches the ball both player and team control are established. Since B2 jumped from his backcourt both he and the ball have backcourt status at this time. When the first foot touches in the frontcourt and the second foot has yet to touch the floor the player has frontcourt status per 4-35-1b and 4-35-2 and thus the ball has frontcourt status per 4-4-2. When the second foot lands in the backcourt, the player and the ball both gain backcourt status per the same rules. Thus a backcourt violation has occurred per 9-9-1.
|
Great post Zoochy! 