Need case citation- back court violation

[Bad Zebra]

Can anybody provide a case citation for the following scenario (or something similar)? I seem to remember one but can't find it...

A1, in his front court attempts to pass ball to A2. B1, who is in A's front court, tips ball, and the ball is caught in the air by A3, standing in back court. Ruling: Back court violation.

[Raymond]

Search the interps above. I think you've been around for the multiple conversations we had on this exact subject.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[Bad Zebra]

Not having much luck finding it quickly...(as I'm not in a place where I'm really supposed to be doing this at the moment) Hoping that an esteemed member might remember this specific scenario from recent past.

[deecee]

I believe 9.9.1 or .2 covers this. I think 9.9.1 is more applicable. The ball must gain backcourt status first for the player with TC to be the first to touch in this case.

Stupid and overly complicated in my opinion. They should just simplify the bc statute.

[Bad Zebra]

This isn't exact but I think it applies here...does anyone have anything better?

2007-2008 Rules Interpretation:

SITUATION 10: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1; 4-4-3; 9-9-1)

[deecee]

9.9.1 covers this. The ball must first get backcourt status for it to NOT be a violation. The ball still has front court status when A2 touches the ball. Therefore it is a violation since A2 caused the ball to gain backcourt status.

Like I said earlier overly complicated.

[just another ref]

After a lengthy discussion, most of us agreed that this interpretation is bogus.

[SC Official]

The interpretation does not agree with the rule as written.

That is the gist of what every discussion we have about this exact same play ends up at.

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by just another ref

After a lengthy discussion, most of us agreed that this interpretation is bogus.

It's the source of a disagreement among our entire association. The general concensus is A)"That can't be right" B) "That's crazy, I never called it that way" and C) "How would you explain that to a coach"?

[Adam]

It's a 9 year old interpretation, not in the case book. If you strictly read the rule, it's not a violation.

A single event (A catching the ball standing in the BC) cannot be both before and after a separate event (the ball gaining BC status).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

9.9.1 covers this. The ball must first get backcourt status for it to NOT be a violation. The ball still has front court status when A2 touches the ball. Therefore it is a violation since A2 caused the ball to gain backcourt status.
Like I said earlier overly complicated.

You know this already, but this is not a violation.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Adam

You know this already, but this is not a violation.

I probably won't call it that way in a game but how the rule reads it is.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

I probably won't call it that way in a game but how the rule reads it is.

No, it's not. the rule reads that it's a violation for a team to be the first to touch the ball after it gains BC status IF they were the last to touch the ball before it gained BC status.

In the OP, the ball gains BC status when A3 catches it. The last to touch before that was B1. By rule, it's not a violation. By very week interpretation, it is.

Based on the rule, would you call the following a violation?

A1 dribbling with two feet in the BC and the ball bouncing in the FC. B1, standing in the FC, tips it behind A1 where A2 catches it in stride, in the BC.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Adam

No, it's not. the rule reads that it's a violation for a team to be the first to touch the ball after it gains BC status IF they were the last to touch the ball before it gained BC status.

In the OP, the ball gains BC status when A3 catches it. The last to touch before that was B1. By rule, it's not a violation. By very week interpretation, it is.

Based on the rule, would you call the following a violation?

A1 dribbling with two feet in the BC and the ball bouncing in the FC. B1, standing in the FC, tips it behind A1 where A2 catches it in stride, in the BC.

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.

In the first stitch TC and PC were established in the frontcourt. By rule the team with control CANNOT be the one to cause the ball to gain BC status. 9.9.1 and 9.9.2 support this. 9.9.2 specifies TC and PC.

Like I said, I'm unlikely to call this as no one else does, and it is complicating the rule a bit. I would also apply 9.9.1 Sit C in the OP as well for my reasoning. But there is enough rule support to call a BC violation in the OP. I have said already that I'm not likely to make that call.

So in your stitch I would consider the ball

[Adam]

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.

In the first stitch TC and PC were established in the frontcourt. By rule the team with control CANNOT be the one to cause the ball to gain BC status. 9.9.1 and 9.9.2 support this. 9.9.2 specifies TC and PC.

Like I said, I'm unlikely to call this as no one else does, and it is complicating the rule a bit. I would also apply 9.9.1 Sit C in the OP as well for my reasoning. But there is enough rule support to call a BC violation in the OP. I have said already that I'm not likely to make that call.

So in your stitch I would consider the ball

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.