North Carolina @ Indiana

[JRutledge]

Was this a foul or violation?



Lane Violation



Peace

[Camron Rust]

Backcourt violation appeared to occur before contact, but hard to say from that angle.

FT violation was pretty obvious, not much to discuss there.

Play 1: BC violation before foul, new Lead needs to help with this

Play 2: CC delayed lane violation

[ballgame99]

on the potential BC violation, if he is in the air when he catches the ball doesn't he get to land where he wants? Its hard to see from this angle, but let's say he leaves the floor with both feet (from the FC) and catches the ball while airborne and lands strattled on the line, isn't he considered to still be in BC status?

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

on the potential BC violation, if he is in the air when he catches the ball doesn't he get to land where he wants? Its hard to see from this angle, but let's say he leaves the floor with both feet (from the FC) and catches the ball while airborne and lands strattled on the line, isn't he considered to still be in BC status?

You are where you were till you get where you're going. Player is in front court until he lands.

To be legal on that play, he would of needed to get one foot down in the BC before he caught the ball.

[Remington]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

You are where you were till you get where you're going. Player is in front court until he lands.

To be legal on that play, he would of needed to get one foot down in the BC before he caught the ball.

And, in case some aren't sure, if you are touching the half line, you are considered to be in the backcourt.......similar to stepping on the sideline or endline to be out of bounds.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

on the potential BC violation, if he is in the air when he catches the ball doesn't he get to land where he wants? Its hard to see from this angle, but let's say he leaves the floor with both feet (from the FC) and catches the ball while airborne and lands strattled on the line, isn't he considered to still be in BC status?

The "exception" that allows an airborne player to catch the ball and make a normal landing (NFHS 9-9-3/NCAA 9-12-9,10) applies only during a throw-in, jump ball, or while on defense.

[RefRich]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

on the potential BC violation, if he is in the air when he catches the ball doesn't he get to land where he wants? Its hard to see from this angle, but let's say he leaves the floor with both feet (from the FC) and catches the ball while airborne and lands strattled on the line, isn't he considered to still be in BC status?

According to Rule 9.9, there is not violation because there has been no established position in the front court. All of the discussion so far appears to be that the ball is in the front court already. The jumping from the front court to the back court is not a factor because nothing has been established yet.

"in order to have a backcourt violation, “player and team” control must first be established in the frontcourt. This means a player must have been dribbling or holding the ball entirely in the frontcourt."

Isn't this a true statement? Now if his back foot lands in the newly established front court then when his front foot lands in the now defined back court it would be a violation. But in this case it would be a foul (based on the angle that I see visable)

[JRutledge]

The player's location is where he jumped from. He jumped from the FC and touched the ball in the air. Then he appears to land at least in part in the BC. That is a violation.

Peace

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by RefRich

According to Rule 9.9, there is not violation because there has been no established position in the front court. All of the discussion so far appears to be that the ball is in the front court already. The jumping from the front court to the back court is not a factor because nothing has been established yet.

"in order to have a backcourt violation, “player and team” control must first be established in the frontcourt. This means a player must have been dribbling or holding the ball entirely in the frontcourt."

Isn't this a true statement? Now if his back foot lands in the newly established front court then when his front foot lands in the now defined back court it would be a violation. But in this case it would be a foul (based on the angle that I see visable)

An airborne player retains the status of where he last touched the floor. You have frontcourt status if you jump from the frontcourt and have backcourt status once you land.

And player control is not (necessarily) required in the frontcourt to have a backcourt violation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RefRich

According to Rule 9.9, there is not violation because there has been no established position in the front court. All of the discussion so far appears to be that the ball is in the front court already. The jumping from the front court to the back court is not a factor because nothing has been established yet.

"in order to have a backcourt violation, “player and team” control must first be established in the frontcourt. This means a player must have been dribbling or holding the ball entirely in the frontcourt."

Isn't this a true statement? Now if his back foot lands in the newly established front court then when his front foot lands in the now defined back court it would be a violation. But in this case it would be a foul (based on the angle that I see visable)

Player and team control had already been established, then a pass was thrown between teammates. The receiving teammate jumped from the FC (he continues to have FC status until he lands) and catches the ball. Now you have player and team control in the FC (player control in the FC is not actually required, but it's hear in this play). As soon as he lands in the BC you have a violation.