Need case citation- back court violation

[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.