9-9....?

[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."

[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.