[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Rule 9: SECTION 9 BACKCOURT

(From 03-04 book)

EXCEPTION 1: It is not a violation when after a jump ball or a throw-in, a player is the first to secure control of the ball while both feet are off the floor and he or she then returns to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt.
EXCEPTION 2: It is not a violation if a defensive player who jumped from frontcourt, secures control of the ball while both feet are off the floor and he or she returns to the floor with one or both feet in backcourt.

(From 06-07 book)

ART. 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.

According to the older rules, you'd clearly be wrong as exception 1 (the throwin exception) applied until someone was the first to secure control without regard to how many times it was touched or who touched it.


But according to the editorial rewrite that occured a couple years ago (one that wasn't supposed to change the meaning), the throwin exception appears to only apply until the throwin ends...when the ball is touched. This has been debated before and the rule does say that a player from the team not in control can legally catch the ball (with examples of who may catch it in parentheses)....but others say that the parentheses provides an exclusive list of when/who can catch the ball, not just examples.


However, the new version of the rule still always allows a defender the to catch the ball and land without violating. The question, then, is whether B1 is a defender. Can someone be a defender without the other team having team control? Hmmm.


I assert that the older rules give us insight into the meaning (since it was supposed to be an editorial change and not a rule change).....leading the the result that it is not a violation for B1.


They really took a clear rule and made it a mess when they rewrote it. In its former state, it was fully unambiguous. In its current form, it is ambiguous at best.

Agreed. I don't have a BC violation either, nor can I find this play in the Case Book.