Need case citation- back court violation

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

I read that for it to be a backcourt violation a team MUST establish Team Control AND Player Control in the FC or a teammate cannot be the last to touch (9.9.1 Sit C). Since both these criteria were not met then no it is not a BC violation.


...

You know that is wrong, otherwise A1 in the backcourt can throw the ball off of A2's head who's in the frontcourt and catch the ball again in the backcourt.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'll have to pull the wording of the rule, but it's very specific.

1. Must have established TC and FC status.
2. Team in control must be last to touch the ball BEFORE it gains BC status.
3. Team in control must be first to touch the ball AFTER it gains BC status.

In the OP, #2 is missing because B2 touched it before it went into the BC.

My play looks a lot different, but there is zero rules basis for differentiating between them.

Technically in the OP the team in control was the last to touch before and after since the touching of the ball changed the status from front to BC.

So to be a BC violation we have 2 things that MUST be true

1. Team in Control (TIC) must be the last to touch in the FC
AND
2. TIC must be the first to touch after ball has BC status

The key point is the status of the ball. The ball is still FC until it either bounces in the BC or makes contact with a player in the BC. So a player whose TIC of the ball cannot cause the ball to go from FC to BC status as they were not the first to touch AFTER gaining BC status but during the status change.

All fun and semantics but BEFORE and AFTER are very specific words.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You know that is wrong, otherwise A1 in the backcourt can throw the ball off of A2's head who's in the frontcourt and catch the ball again in the backcourt.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

No, it's a BC violation, I specified that team in control cannot be the last to touch in the FC. I was referencing Adam's scenario where the team in control did not yet establish FC status.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

Technically in the OP the team in control was the last to touch before and after since the touching of the ball changed the status from front to BC.

So to be a BC violation we have 2 things that MUST be true

1. Team in Control (TIC) must be the last to touch in the FC
AND
2. TIC must be the first to touch after ball has BC status

The key point is the status of the ball. The ball is still FC until it either bounces in the BC or makes contact with a player in the BC. So a player whose TIC of the ball cannot cause the ball to go from FC to BC status as they were not the first to touch AFTER gaining BC status but during the status change.

All fun and semantics but BEFORE and AFTER are very specific words.

They are very specific words: one event cannot occur both before and after a separate event. A3 catching the ball is one event. Last to touch is a separate event. First to touch is yet a third event.

The rule is clear as day.

I ask again, my altered play, what is your basis for not calling that a violation?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

No, it's a BC violation, I specified that team in control cannot be the last to touch in the FC. I was referencing Adam's scenario where the team in control did not yet establish FC status.

Read his response again. If PC is required in the FC (it is not, by rule), then BNR's play would also not be a violation.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'll have to pull the wording of the rule, but it's very specific.

Here is the wording

"A player shall not be the first to touch the ball AFTER it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the FC BEFORE it went to the BC"

[deecee]

I'm making this more complicated that it should be. I wouldn't call this a BC violation since it is confusing, however I do see rule support to be able to make the call.

I would encourage an official to not go that route as it's just to darn confusing.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

I'm making this more complicated that it should be. I wouldn't call this a BC violation since it is confusing, however I do see rule support to be able to make the call.

I would encourage an official to not go that route as it's just to darn confusing.

I used to be on this side of the argument that it was a violation, but I've come around to the dark side, also known as agreeing with Adam.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I used to be on this side of the argument that it was a violation, but I've come around to the dark side, also known as agreeing with Adam.

It can be a difficult adjustment for some.

[bballref3966]

That interpretation is so stupid and it causes so many arguments on this forum. Causing the ball to have backcourt status is not a violation.

1) TRUE team control established by a player gaining control at some point (not necessarily in the FC)
2) Ball gains FC status
3) Team A is the last to touch in the FC
4) Team A is the first to touch in the BC

[SNIPERBBB]

9.9.1 SITUATION E:

A1 inbounds the ball at the division line; A2 jumps from the frontcourt, controls the ball in the air, and while still in the air passes it to A3, who is in the backcourt.

RULING: Backcourt violation.

COMMENT: The throw-in exception only applies to the player initially receiving the throw-in pass (first touch). Since the throw-in has ended, all backcourt rules apply. Had A2 just landed in the backcourt, there would have been no violation. (9-9-3)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

9.9.1 SITUATION E:

A1 inbounds the ball at the division line; A2 jumps from the frontcourt, controls the ball in the air, and while still in the air passes it to A3, who is in the backcourt.

RULING: Backcourt violation.

COMMENT: The throw-in exception only applies to the player initially receiving the throw-in pass (first touch). Since the throw-in has ended, all backcourt rules apply. Had A2 just landed in the backcourt, there would have been no violation. (9-9-3)

Nice cite, but I don't see what it has to do with this play.

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

That interpretation is so stupid and it causes so many arguments on this forum...

Which is kinda the point of the Forum. It's all good.