9-9....?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Backcourt violation, or not?
https://youtu.be/1xqD1erJTEk

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.

[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.

[SD Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Correct answer and correct reasons.

I agree 100%.

Do you really want to start a game by calling this? I don't want to be that guy.

Is not calling it technically wrong? I suppose so, but I'm not calling it. Play on and let's get the game going.

[SD Referee]

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.

I'm not going to argue with either side of the argument. You can't really get this one wrong...............unless you really want to get technical and really look at it.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by SD Referee

I'm not going to argue with either side of the argument. You can't really get this one wrong...............unless you really want to get technical and really look at it.

There is nothing more technical than by rule this is a BC violation. In reality it won't and shouldn't get called.

[jTheUmp]

There's also the question of which official would even get a good look at it.

R (or the tossing official) is in the best position, but probably won't be looking over there until players clear the jump circle.

In a 3-person game, neither of the umpires is going to be in a good position to see it... U1 might have a chance.

In a 2-person game, the U would probably get a look (assuming she hasn't moved off the division line yet).

Personally, I'm no-calling this, but I'm also not going to attempt to overrule a partner if they call it.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by deecee

There is nothing more technical than by rule this is a BC violation. In reality it won't and shouldn't get called.

In reality, it may get missed, but SHOULD get called. It's illegal. It's that simple.

I agree with the poster who stated that a 2-person crew is actually better positioned to make this call than a 3-person crew.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

In reality, it may get missed, but SHOULD get called. It's illegal. It's that simple.

I agree with the poster who stated that a 2-person crew is actually better positioned to make this call than a 3-person crew.

If I see this, I'm 99% sure I'd call it. I'm not convinced I'd see it, though.

I'm not sure a crew of 2 is going to see this significantly better, since the U is going to be on the opposite side of the court looking through the jumpers. If U can see it, though, it's going to be with the perfect line of sight (as opposed to trying to call this from the FT line extended.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Adam

If I see this, I'm 99% sure I'd call it. I'm not convinced I'd see it, though.

I'm not sure a crew of 2 is going to see this significantly better, since the U is going to be on the opposite side of the court looking through the jumpers. If U can see it, though, it's going to be with the perfect line of sight (as opposed to trying to call this from the FT line extended.

I think you are supposed to be at the 28' marks (or equivalent) -- and I think you'd be able to see it. Unlike SD Referee, I don't think this is "overly technical" or the wrong way to start the game.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think you are supposed to be at the 28' marks (or equivalent) -- and I think you'd be able to see it. Unlike SD Referee, I don't think this is "overly technical" or the wrong way to start the game.

Gee whiz, are you gonna call if it if a player barely steps on the sideline during the jump, too?

Seriously, I don't see why one wouldn't call this if one was sure -- but I certainly see how one might well not be sure, both because it happens quickly and because it isn't one of things one is thinking about during a jump. (And, I suppose, because there are so few jumps in the modern game that there aren't a lot of chances to see the weird stuff actually happen.)