Throwin Exception
 

Player running full speed and receiving the ball from a throwin one foot in FC then other foot in BC. Anyone seeing this a lot? Determining whether player is airborne that fast is hard. Lean on not a BC violation?

I know it would be much easier for coaches to tell players to stop giving the ball to the players at this point!!

Points of emphasis for 17-18

With specific regard to the backcourt violation; a team may not be the last to touch a live ball in the front court and then be the first to touch a live ball in the backcourt, provided that team has establish player control/team control on the playing court (either in the backcourt or frontcourt). 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.

No. (Well, to clarify -- I am not seeing that a lot. Others might.

That's why we get paid the big bucks.


You're channeling your inner BillyMac -- quoting something that is accurate but only tangentially related to the issue.

ART. 3

During a jump ball, throw-in or while on defense, a player may legally jump from his/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 backcourt.

PENALTY: (Section 9) The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation

So on the opening tip, if a player jumps from the front court, catches the ball, and lands in the backcourt, it should be a violation? (I saw that earlier this season and wondered.)

If so, who gets the arrow?

Doh. Never mind. Reading comprehension problem here . . .

The play in the OP is a clear backcourt violation. A player who is running is not an airborne player with both feet off the floor. The exception is for a player who jumps.

The Land Of Steady Habits ...
 

Only applies to Connecticut and few other states.

Varsity Fee: $95.90 (two person game, no mileage, less 7% assignment fee)

The Float Phase ...
 

Says who?

Running is a type of gait characterized by an aerial phase in which all feet are above the ground

Let’s imagine you are at that moment in your stride when both feet are off the floor (sometimes referred to as float phase).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running

Note: Running in such a way that both feet are never off the ground at the same time is called race walking, and is an Olympic sport.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racewalking

I understand your point however.....says me. If a player is running as described, I am going with BC. The cases associated with BC violations involve being airborne due to jumping. At your point in a running stride where both feet are off the ground, I am not considering that to be jumping.;)

Billy, are you channeling Eadweard Muybridge?

"secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor"

this is why I brought this up .. running and catching the ball could be done with both feet off the floor thus making this play sometimes NOT a BC violation and sometimes a BC violation depending on if the official can determine if the ball is secured with one foot on the floor or both feet off the floor

and full speed that is tough to do

99% of the time -- if they know they are near the division line, they will actually jump to land in the BC. Give them the benefit of the doubt.

If they just try to stop in the FC, then assume they did that with the first foot (and, thus, a BC violation).

Not one player in 1000 knows the specific rule we are discussing -- so no one is going to try to use it.

I had a play like this the other night. I didn't call the BC violation because I felt the player was making a "normal" landing (one foot landed in the FC right before the other landed in the BC). However, both of my partners believed that technically it was a violation, but they would have passed on it as well.

By the way, one of my partners that said it was technically a violation is one of my assignors.

A Horse Is A Horse, Of Course, Of Course ...
 

I was actually thinking of him as I planned my post.

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=OIP.218...=95&w=174&h=94