Backcourt Violation?

[Ref25]

What also makes the interpretation silly, is they give no recognition a rule that states the ball touching a player is THE SAME as touching the floor in that spot. If it is not a bc violation if the ball hits the floor first, and a touching the ball is the same as the ball hitting the floor, how can 1 be a violation and 1 not?
They pay no mind to the intent of the rule.
I wonder what the NCAA interpretation would be

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by Ref25

What also makes the interpretation silly, is they give no recognition a rule that states the ball touching a player is THE SAME as touching the floor in that spot. If it is not a bc violation if the ball hits the floor first, and a touching the ball is the same as the ball hitting the floor, how can 1 be a violation and 1 not?
They pay no mind to the intent of the rule.
I wonder what the NCAA interpretation would be

The closest plays I could find from the 2016-17 NCAA Men's Casebook:

A.R. 215

The ball is at the disposal of Team A for a throw-in. A1 attempts
to throw the inbounds pass to A2, who is located in his frontcourt near the
division line.

1. A1’s pass is deflected by B1. A2 leaves the playing court in his
frontcourt and while airborne, controls the ball, and then lands with
one or both feet in the backcourt.
RULING 1: Violation. When B1 deflected A1’s inbounds pass, that
legal touching caused the throw-in to end. A1, having established
front-court status when he left Team A’s frontcourt, gained player and
team control in the air. When A1 lands with one or both feet in the
backcourt, he has committed a back-court violation. The exception to
the back-court rules are only applicable for the player who made the
initial touch on the ball.
(Rule 9-12.1 through .3, .5 through .7 and .9 through .10, and
7-6.5)

2. A1’s throw-in pass is deflected by B1. The ball bounces into Team A’s
frontcourt. While the ball is bouncing in Team A’s frontcourt, it is
deflected into Team A’s backcourt, where A3 retrieves it.
RULING 2: Legal. This is not a back-court violation since neither player nor
team control had been established in the frontcourt.
(Rule 9-12.4)

3. A1’s throw-in pass is deflected by A2, who fumbles it into the
backcourt. A2 then goes into the backcourt and recovers the fumble.
RULING 3: Legal. This is not a back-court violation since neither player nor
team control had been established in the frontcourt.
(Rule 9-12.4, and 9-12.1 through .3, .5 through .7 and .9 through
.10)

From what I read, the underlying factor is there must also be player control with the ball (as well as team control) in order for a BC violation.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

The closest plays I could find from the 2016-17 NCAA Men's Casebook:



From what I read, the underlying factor is there must also be player control with the ball (as well as team control) in order for a BC violation.

Yes...on a throw-in.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

The closest plays I could find from the 2016-17 NCAA Men's Casebook:



From what I read, the underlying factor is there must also be player control with the ball (as well as team control) in order for a BC violation.

The underlying element is that player control must first be established inbounds when play resumes with a throw-in before a backcourt violation can occur.
The NFHS published the same ruling as a POE.

PS the NCAA should have written "muffs" instead of "fumbles" in the final play.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Ref25

I wonder what the NCAA interpretation would be

From NCAAW "Ask Jon:"

DATE:

1/22/2015

RULE:

9-13-4

QUESTION:

A January 2015 Referee Magazine play has generated a great deal of discussion among Iowa WBB officials. Here's the play: Player and team control have been established in the front court. A1 passes to A2 in the front court and the ball is deflected up into the air by B1. A3 recovers the ball, which is still in the air, with both feet on the court in the back court. Is this a violation? Operating on the principle of last to touch/first to touch, it seems this should be legal. The defense was last to touch and caused the ball to go into the back court, but it technically still had front court status (because it is still in the air) when it was recovered by the offense - first to touch in the back court.

ANSWER (REVISED):

When we talk about a ball being returned from a team's frontcourt to its backcourt, the key as to whether or not we will have a violation rests with whether or not a member of that team was the last to touch the ball in their frontcourt and the first to touch the ball in its backcourt (9-13.4). In your play, B1 is the last player to touch the ball in Team A's front court, so any member of Team A may touch or secure control of the ball in Team A's backcourt.

[Mregor]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I disagree...it is about the status of the ball. Team A can still violate without ever being in the frontcourt.

Example: A1 in the backcourt at the division line makes a bounce pass laterally across the court such that it bounces in the frontcourt. A2, also in the backcourt catches the ball. That is a violation and neither A1 nor A2 were ever in the frontcourt.

That's also a BC violation but for different reason which would be causing ball to go from BC to FC and back to BC w/out touching a player.

In the OP, the status of the ball does not matter, It's when/where/and by whom it is touched.

I really don't see how a reasonable person could issue the interp. I know Referee Mag makes several errors but NFHS website?

OK, BigCat already pointed this out, I didn't mean to pile on. I didn't see the 2nd page. Simple rule, let's not complicate it or overthink it.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mregor

That's also a BC violation but for different reason which would be causing ball to go from BC to FC and back to BC w/out touching a player.

In the OP, the status of the ball does not matter, It's when/where/and by whom it is touched.

I really don't see how a reasonable person could issue the interp. I know Referee Mag makes several errors but NFHS website?

OK, BigCat already pointed this out, I didn't mean to pile on. I didn't see the 2nd page. Simple rule, let's not complicate it or overthink it.

Even with the article directly addressing this play, it is still covered under the last to touch before/first to touch after article. IIRC, the 2nd article wasn't always part of the rule but was added to ensure clarity.