Need case citation- back court violation

[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]

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.

[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.

[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"

[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 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.