Need case citation- back court violation
 

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

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

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.

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"?

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).

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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"

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

It can be a difficult adjustment for some.

Four criteria...
 

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

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.

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