Straddling the division line

[Bcopas]

If A was straddling the sideline, A caused the ball to go out of bounds. Same applies here. Hopefully makes it easier to understand. Backcourt violation on A.

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by Bcopas

If A was straddling the sideline, A caused the ball to go out of bounds. Same applies here. Hopefully makes it easier to understand. Backcourt violation on A.

Im going to disagree with your way of looking at this. At no point can a player straddle an out of bounds line and their team keep possession. The same cannot be said for the division line. You can't simplify it that much without a lot of confusion.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Bcopas

If A was straddling the sideline, A caused the ball to go out of bounds. Same applies here. Hopefully makes it easier to understand. Backcourt violation on A.

It's not a violation to "cause the ball to go to the backcourt" like it's a violation to "cause the ball to go out of bounds"

[just another ref]

This is not a violation. A was not last to touch in the frontcourt.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is not a violation. A was not last to touch in the frontcourt.

More accurately...

A was not the last to touch the ball before the ball returned to the backcourt.

The location of the touch is not important but the timing of the touch relative to the time the ball goes from frontcourt to backcourt is what is important.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

More accurately...

A was not the last to touch the ball before the ball returned to the backcourt.

The location of the touch is not important but the timing of the touch relative to the time the ball goes from frontcourt to backcourt is what is important.

your last sentence is causing me to have a headache... I understand the rule but not that sentence...
I don't like the simultaneous interp because the rule clearly says team has to be last AND first. that means one after the other to me. two touches....

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

your last sentence is causing me to have a headache... I understand the rule but not that sentence...
I don't like the simultaneous interp because the rule clearly says team has to be last AND first. that means one after the other to me. two touches....

Sorry about the sentence...it says what you're saying (I think).

It is entirely possible to have a backcourt violation without every having the the offensive team touch the ball in the frontcourt (or, in a different play, backcourt).

EXAMPLE:

A1, in the backcourt, throws a bounce pass across the court to A2, who is also in the backcourt. However, the bounce during the pass was in the frontcourt. Team control...ball obtains frontcourt status...ball returns the backcourt when caught by A2 (or maybe a 2nd bounce occurred in the BC before A2 caught it).

A1 was the last to touch BEFORE the ball returned to the backcourt. A2 was the first to touch AFTER it returned. Yet, neither touched it in the frontcourt.

When the ball goes from frontcourt to the backcourt, you have to ask 3 things:
1. Was there team control inbounds at the time?
2. Was team A the last to touch it (anywhere) before it did so?
3. Was team A the next to touch it (anywhere) after it did so?

Yes to all is a violation. No to any is legal.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BigCat

your last sentence is causing me to have a headache... I understand the rule but not that sentence...

The location of the touch is irrelevant to a backcourt violation. You don't have to touch the ball while it's in the backcourt. You don't have to touch the ball while you're in the backcourt.

You have to be the first to touch the ball AFTER IT HAS BEEN in the backcourt. That's why the timing is more important than the location of the touch. For example:

A1 is trapped in the frontcourt near the division line. A1 extends the ball over the backcourt in order to throw a bounce pass around the trap. The bounce pass touches the division line and then is caught be A2 who is standing in the frontcourt.

This is a backcourt violation even though no one touched the ball while it was in the backcourt. However, A2 was the first to touch the ball AFTER IT HAD BEEN in the backcourt. TWEET!

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

The location of the touch is irrelevant to a backcourt violation. You don't have to touch the ball while it's in the backcourt. You don't have to touch the ball while you're in the backcourt.

You have to be the first to touch the ball AFTER IT HAS BEEN in the backcourt. That's why the timing is more important than the location of the touch. For example:

A1 is trapped in the frontcourt near the division line. A1 extends the ball over the backcourt in order to throw a bounce pass around the trap. The bounce pass touches the division line and then is caught be A2 who is standing in the frontcourt.

This is a backcourt violation even though no one touched the ball while it was in the backcourt. However, A2 was the first to touch the ball AFTER IT HAD BEEN in the backcourt. TWEET!

Thank you scrapper. I understand the rules. The OP was a play where the ball was being dribbled in the FC by A, deflected by B to a player straddling the line. I was giving Camron a hard time about word usage in his sentence.. "timing of touch relative to time..." Made me think too hard.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Bcopas

If A was straddling the sideline, A caused the ball to go out of bounds. Same applies here. Hopefully makes it easier to understand. Backcourt violation on A.

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

Im going to disagree with your way of looking at this. At no point can a player straddle an out of bounds line and their team keep possession. The same cannot be said for the division line. You can't simplify it that much without a lot of confusion.

I actually like this analogy (even though I don't like the interpretation). If B1 touches the ball and A1 is straddling the sideline, A1 can either touch the ball before it hits the sideline (out of bounds on A1) or they can let it go past the sideline first (out of bounds on B1) and retain possession. Similar logic with the backcourt, even though it's not entirely the same. It does help with the split second decision in the moment.

[JRutledge]

I am not understanding the confusion here. When you straddle the division line, by rule you are located in the BC. If you touch a ball that has yet to reach BC status, then you have violated the backcourt rule. If the all touched the BC and then you touch the ball while straddling the line, then you are still in the BC and the ball had maintained BC status. The OP never said what happened to the ball clearly after the deflection.

So if the ball had FC status and then touched by a player located in the BC, the violation is because the player caused the ball to be in the BC.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not understanding the confusion here. When you straddle the division line, by rule you are located in the BC. If you touch a ball that has yet to reach BC status, then you have violated the backcourt rule. If the all touched the BC and then you touch the ball while straddling the line, then you are still in the BC and the ball had maintained BC status. The OP never said what happened to the ball clearly after the deflection.

So if the ball had FC status and then touched by a player located in the BC, the violation is because the player caused the ball to be in the BC.

Peace

A1 is standing in his backcourt near the division line while holding the ball. B1 is guarding A1 while standing on the other side of the division line (in Team A's frontcourt). A1 attempts to throw a forward pass to A2. B1 jumps into the air and blocks the ball. The batted ball returns to A1 in flight (without contacting the court) who catches. What is your ruling?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

A1 is standing in his backcourt near the division line while holding the ball. B1 is guarding A1 while standing on the other side of the division line (in Team A's frontcourt). A1 attempts to throw a forward pass to A2. B1 jumps into the air and blocks the ball. The batted ball returns to A1 in flight (without contacting the court) who catches. What is your ruling?

I've got nothing on this. But I think this is not the same as the other play. I think the player causes the ball to go to the BC because he is touching a ball that has not reached FC status on its own and then touches the ball. In other words causing the ball to be in the BC, which would be a BC violation.

I get the rub here, but I also think this is a case play and the NF has determined this is a violation, so I would go with a violation. That is what interpretations are supposed to do, clarify holes in the wording of the rules.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

A1 is standing in his backcourt near the division line while holding the ball. B1 is guarding A1 while standing on the other side of the division line (in Team A's frontcourt). A1 attempts to throw a forward pass to A2. B1 jumps into the air and blocks the ball. The batted ball returns to A1 in flight (without contacting the court) who catches. What is your ruling?

By NFHS interp, this is a violation. In NCAAW (and I think NCAAM), it's not.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

By NFHS interp, this is a violation. In NCAAW (and I think NCAAM), it's not.

I don't understand how this is a violation in NFHS. The last to touch the ball when it gained FC status was team B (player B1's deflection of the pass), and the first to touch the ball when it gained BC status was team A (player A1 re-gaining control after the pass was deflected back to him by B1).