Inbounds pass muffed into backcourt
 

I thought I recalled seeing this discussed here previously, but I've searched and can't find it.


NFHS Rules

A1 is inbounding from the endline in his frontcourt. A2 is standing in the frontcourt near the division line. A2 jumps to catch the pass, and the ball goes off his fingertips and into the backcourt where A2 goes and retrieves it.

Is this a violation?? Please cite rules or casebook plays. I know the reason for the correct ruling should center around control.

No violation. The infamous rule 9 section 9 Backcourt article 3.

In order to have a backcourt violation, there have been player control inbounds. Until there is such, there is no team control (true team control). Without team control, there can be no backcourt violation.

See rule 4 and rule 9. ;)

Four Elements ...
 

The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control (and initial player control
when coming from a throw-in); the ball must have achieved frontcourt status; the team in team control must
be the last to touch the ball before it goes into the backcourt; that same team must be the first to touch after
the ball has been in the backcourt.

During a throwin, even under a team’s own basket, if the throwin is deflected, tipped, or batted, by an offensive player in the frontcourt to an offensive player in the backcourt; or after a missed field goal attempt, or a missed foul shot attempt, if the ball is deflected, tipped, or batted, by an offensive player in the frontcourt to an offensive player in the backcourt; these are not a backcourt violations.

SITUATION 5: A1 has the ball for an end-line throw-in in his/her frontcourt. A1’s pass to A2, who is in the frontcourt standing near the division line, is high and deflects off A2’s hand and goes into Team A’s backcourt. A2 is then the first to control the ball in Team A’s backcourt. RULING: Legal. There is no backcourt violation since player and team control had not yet been established in Team A’s frontcourt before the ball went into Team A’s backcourt. The throw-in ends when A2 legally touches the ball, but the backcourt count does not start until A2 gains control in his/her backcourt. (4-12-2d; 9-9)

Had this play last night:
Team A is in their front court and has a pass deflected by team B. The tipped pass is headed toward team A back court.
A2 jumps from front court and gains possession of the ball (in the air) and lands in teams A back court.
Trail calls over and back and team A's coach (who has been excellent) wants an explanation.
Partner explains; she left the air while still in her front court therefore she and the ball still had front court status.
I initially thought - he's right, but now I think WE got it wrong.
I'm thinking the tipped pass changes team control - therefore making A2 a defender - NFHS 9.9.3.
Am I thinking correctly here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Am I wrong in thinking in order to have TC, you must obtain possession?

Also, are you in the great (icy) state of Iowa as well?

Thanks for all the responses. Let me see if I understand this, after reading your responses as well as some additional rulebook and casebook reading.

In order for there to be a BC violation, there must first be PLAYER and TEAM Control established IN THE FRONTCOURT. Then, while TC exists in the FC, the offense must be last to touch in the FC and first to touch in the BC.

While there is TEAM CONTROL during a throw-in, and the throw-in occurs on the endline of Team A's frontcourt, this does not establish Frontcourt team control, as the area outside the boundary line is not considered part of the FC. The ball being tipped off the A2's hand as he jumped from the FC to catch the inbounds does not establish FC Team Control. Therefore, A2 can go retrieve the ball in the backcourt and there is no BC Violation.

Do I have this correct?

No, there need not be player control in the front court.

The best way to look at this is to consider the BC play as if there was no team control during a throw-in. In that case, someone in bounds must possess the ball in order to establish team control. From that point on, BC rules apply.

So, your play is not a violation because A2 did not catch the ball to establish TC in bounds.

One more correction on the first to touch portion: it's not first to touch in the BC, it's first to touch after the ball goes into the BC.

*This email I recv'd from the State may clarify:

"The National Federation Office asked that we forward this message.

Much discussion is taking place in the various social media and other places about the follow situation.

Here is the play:

- Team A has Team Control in their frontcourt.

- Team B deflects a pass into the air and over the backcourt.

- A3 catches the ball in his/her backcourt, before the ball make contact with the floor in the backcourt.

RULING:

This is a backcourt violation, since Team A had Team Control in their frontcourt and A3 was the first to touch a ball that still had frontcourt status while A3 was in the backcourt. The deflection of the ball by B does not change the status of the ball. This causes A to be the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt and the first to touch in the backcourt. The ball continued to have backcourt status. Similar to A3 catching the ball while standing out-of-bounds."



"Allow me to remind you of a few things:

- We should all remain consistent in the mechanics of reporting fouls:

o Make your way to the reporting area in front of the scorer’s table. Don’t get in the habit of shouting from across the court or from a long distance."

B never held or dribbled the ball, so B never had TC. That means A never lost TC.

BC violation.

(and, this play should have gone to a different thread, imo -- it's just going to muddy the waters here as responses come in to the different plays)

1. This play isn't relevant to this discussion because the OP involves a throw in.

2. Even on the court, until they actually change the rule to match this distorted interpretation, I'm not going to see that play that well.

Not an official here, but have a couple questions.

If A1 is dribbling in the front court, but his foot steps on the division line, is that a violation?

If A1 is dribbling in the front court, but the ball touches the division line (half over), is that a violation?

If A1 is dribbling in the front court and the ball goes completely over the division line, but the player stays in the front court, is it a violation?

Yes, Yes and Yes.

In the air, but doesn't touch the back court? Like player jumps from front court and while in air "saves" it, passing it to a teammate to the front court?

[

* 1. The guidance from Kansas management that I posted is entirely relevant to permalink post # 6 made by Hawkeye.

*2. If you are the ref in the proximity of such an event/incident as the one we are discussing, then you may have to work to get a better look at the action.

From the Mens NCAA 2016-17 Casebook
 

I know you requested a NFHS ruling but here is the Men's NCAA ruling, scenario #3 was similar to the OP's play:

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.

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)

On 1 and 2 I would have thought so but this question has me thinking. I think we've always called them that way but I'm not so sure that the rules actually support that. Hmmm.

Not Yet ...
 

Not a violation until the dribbler touches the ball after it bounces.

My thoughts....

According to rule 9, to have a backcourt violation, the ball must return to the backcourt. The other articles in this section talk about throwin or transitioning to the frontcourt, so they're not relevant. So, did the ball return to the backcourt?


The definition of ball location says the ball is in the backcourt only when it touches the backcourt or a player who is touching the backcourt. If the dribbler doesn't touch the ball while on the line, does the ball ever return to the backcourt? By the above rule, it doesn't seem so.

You might be tempted to say yes based on the OOB rule...
But, I don't know of any rule that says this restriction on a dribbler and a boundary line extends to the division line.

I know I've always called this a violation, but it seems the rules do not consider the ball to have returned to the backcourt just because the dribbler steps on the line unless the dribbler is touching the ball while doing so.

Similarly, for a dribble that touches the line, it seems, unless I'm missing something, that touching the line is nothing. It would be come a backcourt violation as soon as the dribbler touches it again, however.

What am I missing?

1. If team A had the ball in the FC, say on the wing, and then passed it to A1, he dribbles ball and steps on line. Violation. When he steps on division line, he has BC status. If ball wasnt in FC to start but A1, while dribbling, never got both feet and the ball to touch in the FC then stepping on the line is not a violation. He did not get all 3 parts over and then step on line. He is still in the BC by rule.

2. Same answer.

3. Same answer.

A player dribbling the ball is deemed in control of it. He can call a TO while dribbling. The fact that the player isnt touching or holding the ball at time it hits division line or BC doesnt matter. If its a dribble, its a dribble and he has control. Ball had TC in FC and he in control has it in BC. No other player touch it. Violation.

Boundary ???
 

Are you confusing this (above) with the play where a dribbler who steps on a boundary is considered to be on that boundary even if the ball isn't in the player's hand? This situation is the opposite: The ball hits the boundary, while the player isn't touching the boundary.

If a player is dribbling the ball and dribbles it on a side line or end line. He's caused it go out. Here, the division line is same as a boundary. Rule says while dribbling all three must be in FC for player be in control in FC. Once he is in FC, if he is dribbling, he has control. If anything touches BC, while he is dribbling...Violation.


Short answer.. No. Don't think I'm confusing this. Of course, if I'm confused..I might not realize I'm confused...that's a different story.

You Don't Know What You Don't Know ...
 

Even a really bad bounce pass?

I'm not so sure this is true. It may be that it should be true, but I am not seeing it in the rules. See my post above.

I saw it. A player dribbling is in control of ball. Takes 3 parts to be in FC. Once in FC, if one of 3 in BC while dribbling, player in BC. Step on line, dribble on line or in BC he cause it go in BC

1. There are significant differences. I'd missed that play, but the primary difference is that A2 caught the ball with FC status and carried it into the BC. That's a violation. Had he waited until he landed before catching it, then we have that insipid play.

2. I'm not calling it until they change the rules, period. The logical ramifications of that ruling are absurd, and the rule references are just flat wrong.

3 points is not a general concept. It is a specific application that ceases to be applicable once a player has gained FC status.

That is the point. A player dribbling in FC is in control. If he bounced ball on division line he's caused it to be in BC. Steps on line.same. It takes 3 to get u to FC but once you there it only takes one to put you in BC. As far as player holding or dribbling ball, the division line is like a boundary.

I think you'd be better using the precedent of a dribbler stepping on the OOB (while not holding the ball) line as support for this. I think you're right, and that's how I would call it, but 3 points verbiage is a thin nail for this hat to hang.

I am not hanging anything on that. I was guessing that folks thinking once a player was in FC dribbling, if he simply stepped on the line or dribbled ball on the line it wasn't a violation. I was guessing they were saying it took 3 parts to go back to BC.

My point all along is that 3 parts is a rule to put you in FC. Once you're in it, that rule is over. A player dribbling is in control of ball. If he steps on line or dribbles on it he's violated. Caused ball to be in BC etc

Well hell. I misunderstood you.

Carry on.

It is not a violation to cause the ball to be in the backcourt. Only touching first after causing it to go into the backcourt is a violation (after having last touched it before it went to the backcourt).

Also, as I posted above, the ball location rules actually do not say the ball is in the backcourt when the dribbler steps on the line unless the dribbler is touching the ball while doing so. The clause that covers that for OOBs situations is specifically in the OOB section and mentioned boundaries and doesn't mention the division line.


Likewise for a dribble that hits the line...causing it to be in the backcourt isn't the violation, it is the subsequent touch, according to the rules as far as I can tell?

So, while I have always called it this way, what, by rule, makes it a violation for just stepping/dribbling on the division line?

This will be abbreviated response. You are looking at ball location rule. Look at player control rule. A player holding or dribbling the ball has player control. There are two plays/rules. The player dribbling the ball who steps on the line is deemed OB because he has CONTROL. Interrupted dribble play. Player steps on line, no violation cause no control. These are actually in the rules as opposed to case book. Those plays are just as much about control and player location than the are about inbounds/out of bounds.

Now, you know 1. the BC consists of area plus the division line. 2. Our player is dribbling ball in FC. All the way in. 3. That means team control in FC. 4. If he steps on the line while in control of the ball , holding or dribbling, he is now In BC. The two situations are about control and location. 5. He was last to touch inFC and he dribbled into BC or stepped there.

Now if dribble interrupted and ball hits line then he is not in control and while the ball may be in BC he is not in control and is therefore not touching it in BC. As you said, simply causing it to go to BC isnt enough. However, IF HE IS IN CONTROL of ball and touches the line or dribbles ball on other side of line he IS in BC. Violation in all 3

Forget I said abbreviated.��

Sharp as a marble u were on that....:)

I think the point you're missing is that, while the player clearly obtains BC location by stepping on the line, the definition ball location doesn't put the ball in the backcourt unless the player is touching the ball at that moment. So, unless the player is touching the ball, the ball will have never returned to the backcourt.

And the OOB does say it is OOB when it is under player control but it doesn't go so far as to say that is the reason. I'll concede that it is probably the same thing. However, it simply says a player who has control who steps OOB has caused the ball to be OOB. It does't say a player who has control is the same as touching the ball anywhere else. It would be nice to extend that to cover ball location in general, and maybe that really is what is desired, but that rule is specifically listed as causing an OOB violation, not redefining ball location.

As written, the rules you're referencing do not apply to this situation without at least some level of inference.