9-9....?
 

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

Are you speaking on a theoretical level? :)

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.

Here is the play broken down.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BS3aOtuVNAM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I think this is not a violation. It looks like control is not until the ball is in the backcourt.

Peace

I think she catches it before either foot touches BC. She was in FC. As I said not calling it doesn't bother me because it is that close.

NOT a violation
 

I would say this is NOT a violation. I base this on the fact that there was NO control prior to this since we were coming off a jump ball, so we are talking about the establishment of initial control.

Play on.

The jump ball ended when the ball hit the floor (or another player -- I forget which happened first).

This is a violation.

Yup. It's why I asked if the question was theoretical.

I'm waiting for the "well it's a backcourt because.." and "didn't she travel first"

You can't have a backcourt violation without first having control in the front court. There had not been any control established.

No violation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The player that controlled the ball had frontcourt status when she caught the ball and subsequently landed in the backcourt.

I'm not looking to split hairs here, but by rule?

Backcourt by rule.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I like how Rut can do that. I can't.

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.