Interpretations Check
 

We're still good with this, right? . . . Or not?

SITUATION 6: Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team’s frontcourt (Team B’s backcourt). A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from his/her backcourt
court and catches the ball in the air. B2 lands with the first foot in the frontcourt and second foot in the backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team B. The throw-in ends with the deflection (legal touch) by B1. B2 gains possession/control and first lands in Team B’s frontcourt and then steps in Team B’s backcourt. The provision for making a normal landing only applies to the exceptions of a throw-in and a defensive player, and is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball. (9-9-1, 9-9-3)

It is still good.

Sadly, that is correct.

I would prefer that they change it so that frontcourt/backcourt not exist at ll until a player catches the ball inbounds and that an airborne player doesn't have either status until landing.

I have to disagree.
Nowhere have I ever read that the defensive player exception only applies to the first player to touch the ball. I believe that someone with the NFHS is incorrectly applying a provision of the throw-in exception to the defense.

Defensive ???
 

Bingo. Agree. The word "defensive" jumped out at me right away. This has got to be an error.

Simple fix. There are no restrictions to landing in either the frontcourt or the backcourt for the first player to secure PC subsequent to a throw-in.

NFHS (and NCAAW) have issued prior interps to the effect that there is no "offense" or "defense" until there's PC inbounds. So, the "defensive player" exception cannot apply here.

And, since the throw-in was touched, the "player who catches a throw-in" exception cannot apply, either.

I would support some sort of rules change, but that's what it would take.

Nevada is right about the initial touch stuff not applying to defensive players. Only throwin does it apply. I think it's likely bad grammar/sentence structure/sloppiness as opposed to a new interpretation etc.
Whomever, imo, is trying to say 1. Normal landing exception stuff applies only to throw in and defense. 2. Only for initial touch on throwin. (The play is a throwin that they are explaining.)

They're thinking about throwin but added statement in last sentence about defense which is not correct. sloppy writing and not thinking it all the way through.

Not playing defense?
 

If B2 is fouled attempting to catch the ball it is a Team Control foul on Team A. Clearly there is an offense and a defense on a Throw In, even if the ball is tipped. Frustrating.

Interp Sitch #4
 

SITUATION 4: Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team’s backcourt (Team B’s frontcourt). A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from his/her frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt.

RULING: Backcourt violation on Team B. The throw-in ends with B1’s deflection (legal touch). When B2 gains possession/ control in the air, he/she has frontcourt status. A backcourt violation has occurred when B2 lands in backcourt. (9-9-1, 9-9-3)

In situation #6 that Freddy posted, B2 jumps from his BACKCOURT, which is not included in 9-9-3 as an exception. (H/T Nevada for pointing that out from a similar thread in 2006!)

The defensive player exception is not for this situation. The defensive exception has always applied only after there is team & player control inbounds.

+1

I disagree with your disagreement. :) The reason the exception only applies to the first person to touch the ball is that the exception in 9-9-3 specifically applies only DURING a jump ball or throw-in, or while on defense. Since the throw-in ends when it is legally touched inbounds, the second player who makes the catch and lands in the backcourt is not making that play DURING the throw-in. Therefore, no exception.

He knows that I'm sure. the last sentence in Freddy's play says normal landing provision applies to the throw in and defensive exceptions..."AND is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball."

It reads as if initial touch has something to do with the defensive exception. We all agree it doesn't...but that sentence does read that way....

I have to agree with this. Situation 6 is not covered by the exception because the player does not jump from his frontcourt as the text of the rule requires. My problem is now solely with Situation 4.

I don't think that is true. I don't have my old books with me at this time, but I believe that 9-9-3 used to read something such as "a player from a team not in control may..." That was always true of the players on the non-throwing team.

These are my questions form 2008(?). They created a lot of discussion, thus the Rule interps. There is no difference if the ball is caught by Team A nor Team B while they are in the air after the Throw-in was touched, The airborn player catching the ball IS NOT given the Back Court exception.. Oh well

I'm not sure why there is so much confusion - once the ball is deflected, the throw-in ends and so does the exception. What difference does it make what happens after that?

The question is not about what happens next, it's about "defensive" status since a defensive player is allowed to intercept any other pass while jumping from their FC and landing in their BC.

Are you (and others) questioning what the rule *is* or what the rule *should be*?

The former seems clear to me and is consistent among all codes (I think.)

We can discuss the latter -- heck, I'd like to expand the defensive exception so a player not in the air can steal the ball and proceed to the backcourt if s/he's unable to stop (a "momentum exception")

I thought it was clear that the initial question was about the defensive's backcourt exception when intercepting a pass. The OP wanted to confirm that the defense's BC exception does not exist on a tipped throw-in.

Yes -- that's what the OP wanted. Yes -- that's been confirmed. Obviously, though, there's more to the thread than this or it wouldn't be at 20 posts.

I haven't seen anyone address this, so here goes... I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. The Team Control given to Team A only applies during the throw-in. Once the ball is tipped by B1, the throw-in and subsequent Team Control is over. But even if B1 did not tip the ball it wouldn't matter, as Team Control was for fouling purposes... not for the backcourt violation.

And another reason why there is no "offence" or "defense" until there is player and team control in-bounds, and the exception does not apply.

So B2 would shoot free throws if Team B is in the bonus if he is fouled after the throw-in is tipped?

I believe so, although I found something that makes my previous post at least partially wrong.

Team control continues until one of three things happen... 1. the ball is in flight during a try or tap for goal 2. an opponent secure control 3. the ball becomes dead. So going by that we'd have a team control foul, as none of those three things happened.

However, since the tip by B1 ends the throw-in, logically the thing about there being team control during a throw-in would also end. But I can't find where it says that, so I could very well be wrong.

"A team-control foul is a common foul committed by a member of the team that has team control or by a member of the throw-in team from the start of the throw-in until player control is obtained inbounds."

(Rule 4-19-7)

Thank you

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Because I am giving B2 the defensive player exception, not the throw-in exception. The interp this season is the first one that I've ever seen which states that a defensive player doesn't get his backcourt exception if the pass is tipped. I've never seen that before in twenty years of NFHS officiating and believe that it is a mistake.

Defensive Player Exception ...
 

During a throwin, or jump ball, any player; or a defensive player, in making a steal; may legally jump from his, or 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. The player may make a normal landing, and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt, or the backcourt. These three situations are not backcourt violations.

The defensive exception doesn’t exist until player control inbounds has been established. It’s clear that that’s the way the FED expects this to be adjudicated.

I have to edit my previous statement on NCAAW. This just came out:

QUESTION:

Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team’s backcourt (Team B’s frontcourt). A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1, who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from her frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in her team’s backcourt. Is this a backcourt violation?

ANSWER:

When the ball is at A1’s disposal for the throw-in, Team A has team control (Rules 4-10.a, 4-8.1.a, 4-8.2.a). Team control continues after the release of the throw-in until the opponents gain control of the ball or the ball becomes dead (Rule 4-8.3). Even though the throw-in ended when B1 touched the throw-in pass, it did not end Team A’s team control. B2, as a defensive player, may jump from her frontcourt, gain control of the ball while airborne, and then land with one or both feet in her backcourt, as this is the exception to the backcourt rule (Rule 9-12.9).

This is a legal play.

OK I read the rule and I can see your dilemma. It does seem to be a conflicting bit of information. I can also see why people are splitting hairs over where the player initially jumped from - the frontcourt or backcourt, but I think it's just that - splitting hairs. I don't think there's anything there - just a poorly worded rule. The best argument I can come up with is that technically there is still no offense or defense because there is still no team control. Reading the POE in this year's Rule Book, it specifically states Team Control only applies for fouls by the throwing in team. It's not team control inbounds. Each team has a frontcourt and a backcourt, however, so each team can still create a backcourt violation. So neither team is the defense yet so you have to call the violation regardless of which team grabs the ball and comes down first foot in the frontcourt, second foot in the backcourt.

EDIT: Bob already said this in post #7 so I'm feeling vindicated

Now look what Bob just wrote in post #30. That is consistent with what the NFHS rule has been for twenty years.

Bob’s #30 post is specific to NCAAW, not NFHS. The NFHS rules are not the same. It seems pretty clear to me that in high school this is a violation.

This is from 2007:

SITUATION 7: Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team's backcourt (Team B's frontcourt). A1's throw-in is deflected by B1, who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from his/her frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team B. The throw-in ends with B1's deflection (legal touch). When B2 gains possession/ control in the air, he/she has frontcourt status. A backcourt violation has occurred when B2 lands in backcourt. (9-9-1; 9-9-3)

Confused!
 

FED 2017-2018 RB

9-9-1.3

During a jump ball, throw in or while on defense, a player may legally jump from his/her front court etc...

I was told this rule was changed years ago!

Contradictory statement...
 

I don't know where the idea comes from that there is not any offense or defense until the ball is controlled inbounds. in this years points of emphasis, the NFHS clearly seems to think that the team taking the ball in bounds is on offense, hence the other team B must be on defense:

From page 69 of the rule book: ...BY RULE EXCEPTION, during a throw-in a team may leave the front court, establish player control/team control while airborne and land in the backcourt. This is a legal play and ONLY applies to the first player of the offense who touches the ball PRIOR to the end of the throw-in.

It is my opinion that the NFHS has twisted this interpretation - and apparently did the same thing back in 2007, when the same play was interpreted. Interesting to note that this play was NOT in last year's case book...It would be interesting to see when it was removed.

As for Situation #6 - I also agree that the defense should always be allowed to intercept a pass and not be responsible from where he took off. BUT also agree that the current language only applies to a defender who leaves the floor from his frontcourt. the NFHS should fix this language as well.

If the defensive player is jumping from his backcourt, it doesn't matter where he lands.

Are you sure about that?
What do you do when the first foot comes down in the frontcourt and the second lands in the backcourt?

Nothing. While the rule doesn't explicitly cover this situation, I think it is clear that they want to allow a defender to make a normal landing (both feet down) after securing control while in the air.

The exception only applies to certain situations when player jumps from FC. If player jumps from back Court normal rules apply. Normal landing language doesn't apply. You jump from BC, first foot lands in FC u are now in FC. Second foot down in BC.Violation. The thread has gotten bit confused but If you read earlier responses u will agree with Nevada etc.

Perhaps a related play:

Team A has the ball for a throw-in. A2 jumps and catches the ball and lands with one foot in the frontcourt, near the division line. BEFORE A2 puts the other foot on the floor, A2 begins a dribble -- the first bounce of the dribble is in the backcourt. A2 then places the second foot on the floor in the backcourt and continues to dribble the ball (moving completely into the backcourt). Legal or BC violation?

I'm going to assume your player, A2, jumped from the FC so that exception MIGHT apply. Assuming that, this is a violation. The exception allows A2 to catch ball in air after having jumped from FC and make a normal landing. When he does catch the ball in air having jumped from FC he has FC status. When he dribbles in BC and touches ball again he has violated. The exception allows him a normal landing. Not a dribble while landing...That is not NORMAL:eek: