Over and Back
 

Team A is in possession in A's front court. Team B player tips the ball and it last touches off if team A player and goes into Team A's backcourt where Team A is the first to touch. Is this a violation?

Yes, violation. Player A was last to touch in the front court and first to touch in the back court.

There are four criteria that all must be met in order to have a backcourt violation. If you run a search on this forum you'll be able to find them.

Correct result, but the reason is only almost correct...

Player A was last to touch before it returned to the backcourt and the first to touch after it returned to the backcourt.

The difference is that it doesn't matter where A actually touches the ball, just the timing relative to it returning to the backcourt. In this case, it leads to the same result, but that isn't always the case.

Since the search function here sucks donkey peter here they are:

1. Team control
2. Ball location in front court
3. Last to touch in the front court
4. First to touch in the back court

Almost.

1. Team control
2. Ball location in front court
3. Last to touch before the ball returns to the backcourt
4. First to touch after the ball returns to the backcourt

There is a difference.

Elaborate, because I'm having trouble envisioning what the difference would be.

For the OP:

AremRed is correct, but for #1 remember that team control for backcourt violation purposes is different than team control for foul purposes with respect to a throw-in situation.

It gives the right result for this play but it isn't an entirely accurate set of criteria and it has nothing to do with how team control is defined.

A1, trapped in the frontcourt near the division line throws a bounce pass to A2. The ball bounces on the division line (or otherwise in the backcourt). A2, while entirely in the frontcourt, catches the ball.

That is a violation even though no player ever touched the ball in the backcourt. It would remain a violation even if the ball bounced again but in the frontocurt before A2 caught it.


Similarly, A1, in the backcourt near the division line, throws a bounce pass to A2. The ball bounces in the frontcourt. A2, while in the backcourt, catches the ball.

Again, that is a violation even though no player ever touched the ball in the frontcourt.

I think he is exactly correct. The ball is already in the FC in possession of team A. The play isn't a pass from BC that goes to FC and returns etc. What you say is correct but the facts are different. IU said it clearly and correctly when talking about a ball in FC in possession of a player/team then touched by other team etc. Again, all you say is correct but Your examples aren't the OP.

It is not a violation in the NBA. It is playoff time so I thought you might have been prompted by something you saw in an NBA game

The point is the criteria I list are universal, not limited to a specific case. He might as well said that it is a violation when it is a violation.

Please Check It Out ...
 

This is what I've been using:

The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control (and initial player control
when coming from a throw-in); the ball must have achieved frontcourt status; the team in team control must
be the last to touch the ball before it goes into the backcourt; that same team must be the first to touch after
the ball has been in the backcourt.

Is it universally correct?

I think I would remove "returns" from 3 and 4 and say
3. last to touch before the ball goes to BC
4. First to touch after ball goes to BC.

I'm easily confused but the word "returns" implies that the ball started in BC. If I was explaining the OP I would say Team A was in team control in FC. A2 was the last to touch the ball before it went to BC and the first to touch it after it went into the BC.

It's just words but for some reason that "returns" bothered me…thx

Yes, that would be better.

That seems to be essentially the same.

Here is an example of your play:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hKutC9aP29U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

I had a head coach of 25 years about lose his mind when I called this against his team. I will admit though that this is a rule I was not familiar with when I was playing and coaching.

Did he actually not know the rule after 25 years? I can't imagine he's good at what he does.

I'd assume he just didn't see his team touch the ball again and questioned your eyes.

That was the first thing I did was talk to him to make sure we were arguing the same set of facts. I told him I have a tip by the defense then a tip by your guy in the front court, and your guy first to touch in the back court. He said yes, but thought his guy needed to have possession. I explained that I was 100% sure my call was right and he disagreed. Play on. "I've been coaching 25 years and I've never heard of that!!"

Lovely. It's why I always have a dozen rule books. Coaches need them too.

Probably one of the most common lies we are told.

The only question is which part of that line is a lie?

+2

Worth A Thousand Words ...
 

Nice video. Thanks JRutledge.

This is what I always have to explain to people.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[I]Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
A1, trapped in the frontcourt near the division line throws a bounce pass to A2. The ball bounces on the division line (or otherwise in the backcourt). A2, while entirely in the frontcourt, catches the ball.

That is a violation even though no player ever touched the ball in the backcourt. It would remain a violation even if the ball bounced again but in the frontocurt before A2 caught it.


Similarly, A1, in the backcourt near the division line, throws a bounce pass to A2. The ball bounces in the frontcourt. A2, while in the backcourt, catches the ball.

Again, that is a violation even though no player ever touched the ball in the frontcourt.
This is what I always have to explain to people.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk[/I]




Helpful to think about this in terms of the three point rule (two feet and the ball) for determining front court/back court status. In the first scenario, the ball is in the back court when it hits the division line. So if the ball is first touched by A1 with two feet still in the front court we still have one of the points (the ball) in the back court - and a violation. No different than A1 catching the ball when it is in the front court but tapping one foot down in the back court. Same for the second scenario.

3 points only applies to dribbling the ball. Does not apply to passes etc. When the ball hits the division line it is in the BC. If team A is last to touch before the pass and the first to touch after, it doesn't matter where he is standing. # points only applies to a player dribbling the ball.

For me the three point analogy is always helpful in determining front court/back status although it really only applies to the dribbler. Clearly to first establish front court status all three points must be in the front court - A1's two feet and the ball. For the ball it must actually touch the floor in the front court (for a dribbler) or be in player control by a player in the front court who has both feet in the front court (receipt of a pass). For a back court violation, a Team A player must be the first to touch "in the back court." A Team A player can only be "in the back court" if any of A1's three points are in the back court.

Some examples:

a. A1 has two feet in the front court, ball bounces in the front court and then is in the air in the back court, A1 then reaches across the center line and taps the ball back into the front court or catches the ball (before it hits the ground in the back court) - No Violation.
b. A1 in the back court passes the ball to A2 at the division line. A2 catches the ball, with one foot in the back court and one in front court. A2 is still in the back court. A2 brings his back court foot to the front court and A2 is now in the front court. A2 swings the same foot back to the back court - Violation. A2 with both feet in the front court dribbles the ball on the division line - Violation.

In any event, always thinking about the three points is something that helps me figure out back court and front court status, especially at the division line.

Please let me know it this way of thinking is going to get me in trouble some time.

Thanks.

If I have the ball in BC and throw it to FC it has FC status the moment it hits FC or touches a player or referee in FC. Two feet are not required. 3 points is used for the dribbler near half line. Both feet and ball must be in FC when talking about dribbler. I'll explain more later if needed. Gotta go.

a. "(the ball) is in the backcourt, should read "the ball is over the backcourt, because the location of the ball is defined by it touching or being touched, see Rule 4-1, 2, 3, 4, specifically 4-4-3.

b. If a player is holding the ball and has one foot in the frontcourt, and the other foot in the backcourt, as soon as he/she lifts the foot from the backcourt, he/she and the ball are in the frontcourt, and if the lifted foot is returned to the backcourt, a violation has occurred, see Case Book 4.4.1 (a)

The "three points idea," referring to both feet and the ball, applies to a dribble from backcourt to frontcourt, see Rule 4-4-1 ART. 6. Other situations regarding frontcourt/backcourt player and/or ball location, are covered by other Rules.

Nice, except it is not correct. There are many situations where it just doesn't work. Think of it with the correct principles and you'll be better off.

Thanks for all the clarifying points. Clearly the three point analogy is not a good idea for thinking about over and back violations - because I now see that it is wrong. Good point about the player at the division line holding the ball with one foot in the back court and one in the front court. As soon as he lifts his backcourt foot he is now in the frontcourt - no need for both feet to actually touch into the front court as for a dribbler.

Thanks again.

There are really no intellectual short cuts to understanding the BC rule. Good job on acknowledging the points of the other officials in here. Not everyone can back down like that.