9-9....?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

I agree with your point, however:

ART. 1 . . . A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt,...

Since there has been no team control established, there can be no violation here.

STILL, no violation.

She established front court possession when she grabbed the ball.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

I agree with your point, however:

ART. 1 . . . A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt,...

Since there has been no team control established, there can be no violation here.

STILL, no violation.

She establishes team control when possessing the ball in the air -- with frontcourt status.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

I agree with your point, however:

ART. 1 . . . A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt,...

Since there has been no team control established, there can be no violation here.

STILL, no violation.

Look at player location rule. Airborne player is located where last in contact with floor. She catches ball while in air. Where did she jump from? She jumped from FC. Catches ball while in air. It is now in the FC and in her and her team's control. She lands in BC. Violation. The exception about catching ball with both feet in air does not apply because jump ball was over.

Splitting hairs on when she controlled it. When it takes me a few times looking at replay to figure out where she was when she caught ball I'm not going to call it...

Violation, but one I would probably miss.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Looks like it to me. She caught ball in air while jumping from FC. That gives her FC status. Lands in back court. Violation. The exception doesnt apply to her as it was already touched by other player. I wouldnt lose ANY sleep over not calling it as it happened quick etc. it was a BC violation though.

Correct answer and correct reasons.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Ok. I was wrong.

[Camron Rust]

While I agree that this is a violation, I would be highly in favor or a rule change (and I've mentioned it before) allowing a player who established team control while in the air to land in the backcourt without penalty. There are many ways it could be done and it would be consistent with the existing exceptions.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While I agree that this is a violation, I would be highly in favor or a rule change (and I've mentioned it before) allowing a player who established team control while in the air to land in the backcourt without penalty. There are many ways it could be done and it would be consistent with the existing exceptions.

They simply need to change to something closer to the way it was worded when we had a long drawn out discussion on whether the parenthetical exceptions were meant to be all-inclusive. Once the current wording was adopted, it was clear that they were, in fact, all inclusive.

I agree, I'd like to see it changed to include any situation where the player catching the ball establishes initial team control in the air.

[Rob1968]

Loosely applied: 9-9-3 . . . while on defense, a player may legally jump from his/her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt.

Thus, no violation - remember, "loosely applied."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

Loosely applied: 9-9-3 . . . while on defense, a player may legally jump from his/her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt.

Thus, no violation - remember, "loosely applied."

"on defense" is never defined in the rules, but any reasonable interpretation would require an offense. "offense" is again really not defined, but the existence of team control is generally expected.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Adam

"on defense" is never defined in the rules, but any reasonable interpretation would require an offense. "offense" is again really not defined, but the existence of team control is generally expected.

I agree, and that's why I mentioned that in the play in question, which is clearly after the jumpball had ended, a loose interpretation allows a no-call - as the player in black didn't appear to have control of the ball, which would have allowed an official to consider the player in white to be "on defense."

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

I agree, and that's why I mentioned that in the play in question, which is clearly after the jumpball had ended, a loose interpretation allows a no-call - as the player in black didn't appear to have control of the ball, which would have allowed an official to consider the player in white to be "on defense."

I agree, since no team controlled the ball until white caught it, white cannot be considered to be "on defense." However, that means the exception doesn't apply. I'm not sure why you said this allows a no call. It leads to a call--violation. Caught in FC land in BC. I'm probably missing what your trying to say...

I would simply say it was so close that i can't be sure and if i can't be sure I'm not going to call it.

p.s. (The offense is defined in the rules fundamentals as the team in control of the ball.)

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I agree, since no team controlled the ball until white caught it, white cannot be considered to be "on defense." However, that means the exception doesn't apply. I'm not sure why you said this allows a no call. It leads to a call--violation. Caught in FC land in BC. I'm probably missing what your trying to say...

I would simply say it was so close that i can't be sure and if i can't be sure I'm not going to call it.

p.s. (The offense is defined in the rules fundamentals as the team in control of the ball.)

We are in agreement. I meant that a loose application might allow one to consider that the white player who caught the ball was coming to defend against the player in black.
I'm always trying to be ready to answer a coach's question regarding a call.
So, in this case, what would be the response to a coach who asked about this call?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

We are in agreement. I meant that a loose application might allow one to consider that the white player who caught the ball was coming to defend against the player in black.
I'm always trying to be ready to answer a coach's question regarding a call.
So, in this case, what would be the response to a coach who asked about this call?

If he says wasn't that violation? i would say one of the following:

1. Yep, but didn't process it until too late. or

2. Not sure, may have been….

Tell him the truth. It would be a mistake imo to try and tell him about control and offense and defense etc.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

We are in agreement. I meant that a loose application might allow one to consider that the white player who caught the ball was coming to defend against the player in black.
I'm always trying to be ready to answer a coach's question regarding a call.
So, in this case, what would be the response to a coach who asked about this call?

If he asks why I didn't call it:

"Coach, you might be right, but it was close enough that I wasn't sure enough to call it."