Backcourt or not?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I've had an issue with this list of four. I find it to be bit redundant, and I have it down to a list of three:
1. Team control inbounds,
2. Last to be touched in the frontcourt, and
3. First to be touched in the backcourt.

Isn't the fourth criterion, "must have achieved frontcourt status" already covered by #2? How can you have "last to be touched in the frontcourt" without frontcourt status?

The ball needn't be touched in the FC (or the BC for that matter) for a violation to happen. (Think A1 throws the ball off an official in the FC and then A2 retrieves the ball in the BC.)

So, since your #2 (and #3) are wrong, you need to have a "ball reaches FC" criterion.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The ball needn't be touched in the FC (or the BC for that matter) for a violation to happen. (Think A1 throws the ball off an official in the FC and then A2 retrieves the ball in the BC.)

So, since your #2 (and #3) are wrong, you need to have a "ball reaches FC" criterion.

Good point, but the play you posted is most likely part of a dribble or a travel.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Dad

Good point, but the play you posted is most likely part of a dribble or a travel.

I'm missing your point.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

(Think A1 throws the ball off an official in the FC and then A2 retrieves the ball in the BC.)

I'm assuming you're saying both A1 and A2 are in the BC in this scenario, yes?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I'm assuming you're saying both A1 and A2 are in the BC in this scenario, yes?

Yes.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Yes.

Then I cannot see a violation in the sitch presented:

A1, in the backcourt, passes the ball ahead, and bounces off the T in the frontcourt, where it is touched by A2 in the backcourt.

While the ball had frontcourt status, the rules (9-9-1&2) say that A1 needs to be in the frontcourt (last to touch) for there to be a violation.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Then I cannot see a violation in the sitch presented:

A1, in the backcourt, passes the ball ahead, and bounces off the T in the frontcourt, where it is touched by A2 in the backcourt.

While the ball had frontcourt status, the rules (9-9-1&2) say that A1 needs to be in the frontcourt (last to touch) for there to be a violation.

You need to read part of it again. 9-9-2: While in player and team control in its backcourt, a player shall not cause the ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt and return to backcourt, without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt, such that he/she or a teammate is the first to touch in the backcourt.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by just another ref

You need to read part of it again. 9-9-2: While in player and team control in its backcourt, a player shall not cause the ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt and return to backcourt, without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt, such that he/she or a teammate is the first to touch in the backcourt.

There's also a specific case on this.

And, maybe some interp where it's just a bounce pass from one side of the court to another where the ball hits the division line -- BC violation.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by just another ref

You need to read part of it again. 9-9-2: While in player and team control in its backcourt, a player shall not cause the ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt and return to backcourt, without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt, such that he/she or a teammate is the first to touch in the backcourt.

Well noted, but it throws a wrench into the whole "last to touch, first to touch" vernacular. While the ball may gain FC status by hitting a T or taking a spinning hop before going to BC, you can debate it never last touched anyone in FC.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Well noted, but it throws a wrench into the whole "last to touch, first to touch" vernacular. While the ball may gain FC status by hitting a T or taking a spinning hop before going to BC, you can debate it never last touched anyone in FC.

And it never has to "last touch anyone in FC" (or in the BC for that matter).

It needs to "last touch anyone before going to the BC" and "first touch anyone after going to BC."