Always listen to bob ...
 

Nice citations. Thanks.

So are you saying that because there is no team control that there is no backcourt defensive steal exception and that the video is a backcourt violation?

Very interesting.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.W...=0&w=177&h=170

I think that if the FED were being consistent they would say that, by rule, the play presented is a BC violation.

I think if we were "inventing" basketball and were discussing this play, we would say that it should be legal and write the rule to accomplish that.

Been There, Done That ...
 

Great.

A year from now we can expect the NFHS to publish a press release with a cryptic backcourt jump ball no team control rule change exception that can be debated ad nauseam here on the Forum until the NFHS confirms what their intent really was.

I'll be the Forum member debating (and hoping, and, of course, that will shade my opinion) that the intent of the NFHS was to abolish all jump balls.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Q...=0&w=300&h=300

Guess I must be misunderstanding something....

(presuming the blue jersey did not have control and this is not a defensive player situation)

Looks like BC violation to me. Actually seems quite obvious. The jump ball ended, player was in his FC, jumped, gained control of the ball, and landed in his BC. This was not a throw-in in which case that description would be legal. This is not the first player to touch the ball after the initial jump ball tap, in which case that description would also be legal.

Also not sure why BM said "Because there is no team control during the period immediately after a throwin," unless it was part of his question.

Banishment ...
 

Nice succinct interpretation, most very likely to be correct.

If one makes a "steal" does that automatically mean that the stealer was on defense? Don't answer that question on a written test, but rather, answer that question in a split second as one is preparing to get into proper position after a chaotic jump ball situation. A missed call on this play should not send these officials down to middle school purgatory.

Not sure why you are asking b/c to me, the OP (video) has nothing to do with a defensive steal.

Now, as for asking about a steal, I am not familiar with the definition of a steal as far as record keeping is concerned. I presume that somewhere, there are actual definitions for basketball terms as far as how they are scored. Items such as assists, points, rebounds, steals, etc. must be defined somewhere. I would presume that a steal carries a definition that resembles the defense taking the ball from the offensive. Now, how would it be scored if A2, in joking fashion, took the ball from A3? Would that be considered a steal as far as the stats are concerned? Consider about A1, who has 499 career steals. Coach A instructs A1 to pass the ball to A2 and then for A1 to take it from A2 in order to record his 500th "steal". I have seen players (low level and panic stricken) simply hold the ball and a teammate (far better skill-wise) come a take the ball. What would that be? Yikes!

Stats are such as gray area. If A1 passes to A2 and B1 intercepts the ball, is that considered a steal by B1, a turnover by A1, or both?

I do not think all this was your point but...I always wonder about how official stats are defined.

I did not feel that this was a "chaotic" JB situation. Yes, I know, easier said sitting in a chair watching a video. Can't argue with that. Now, if the call was missed, I also do not feel that, given the apparent level of play, the calling official would be sent to MS purgatory.:) It looks to me like a play that could really make an official stand out. The problem is that no coach would agree with the proper call b/c they do not know the rule. In other words, in this situation, doing the wrong thing is probably the best thing. The no-call results in no explanations/arguments/problems with anyone. The correct call would result in those things with someone and now you have a game starting on a bad note.....even though the correct call was made!

To Make Our Life Interesting ...
 

Coaches around here argue no calls as much as they argue calls. They just like to argue. We've got a few (not many, but a few) rule-knowledgeable, veteran coaches who would argue the incorrect no call in the video. Coaches. Can't officiate with them. Can't officiate without them. God put them there to make our life interesting.

The correct call is a backcourt violation.
We have a player from White jumping into the air from his frontcourt, catching the ball, and landing with one foot in his backcourt.
This is a violation unless he qualifies for one of the three exceptions.

A. This is not a throw-in, so that one is out.

B. The jumpball ended when the ball was touched by a non-jumper, so the during a jumpball exception is out.

C. Blue merely batted the ball after the tapper. The touching by Blue never established control and would not have the AP arrow set in favor of
White, hence there is no team control by Blue which could make White a defensive player. Therefore, that exception is out as well.

We are left with the play remaining a backcourt violation.

BTW to preemptively answer some follow-up questions...
Yes, I would call this violation.
Blue will get the ball for a throw-in AND the AP arrow will be set in Blue's favor.
Tough luck for White, but this is no different than if the player had landed with one foot out-of-bounds.
I hope that everyone on this forum would have called that and set the arrow in favor of Blue.

Heat Of The Moment ...
 

Before this Forum discussion, in the heat of the moment, in a real game (not observing here from the comfort of my chair), my split second decision would have been that it was a steal and a no call. Now I know that I would be wrong, but that would be my call (and it was my call the very first time that I watched the video).

Even though I now know that I would be wrong, by rule, I'm still not 100% convinced (but I am convinced to a lesser degree) that the intent and purpose of the exception would be to strictly define what playing "defense" is.

So you're also setting the arrow to white because B gained initial possession?

That's the argument that we went round-and-round on some 12 years ago (SWAG) before the NFHS clarified the throw-in exception. Time for you to submit another rules change proposal to the committee.

The formula we often quote on this forum . . . could it be used to assess whether the OP should be called one way or the other? Or is it invalid regarding that play?

Requirements for a backcourt violation (in order):
1. Player control obtained (inbounds), establishing team control
2. Ball gains frontcourt status (it may or may not be in player control at this point)
3. Ball last touched by team A BEFORE the ball goes into the backcourt
4. Ball first touched by team A AFTER it goes into the backcourt

Thinking Steal ...
 

I never said that blue gained first possession. Play on (after my incorrect no call) after white gains first true, by definition, possession. Arrow goes to blue.

9-9-3: ... 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.

Was white on defense? No. Just to be sure, let's look up "defense" in Rule 4 Definitions.

Hey, it's an easy backcourt call from the comfort of my chair, after reading dozens of posts, reading over the rule a few times, and reviewing the video a few times.

First time I saw the video, I wasn't thinking "defense", I was thinking "steal" and that's what screwed me up.

It's worth looking at the definition again. It's certainly germane to the situation. Let's look up "defense" in Rule 4 Definitions.

Interesting, Very Interesting ...
 

Freddy. Are you saying that the ball never had any status, frontcourt, nor backcourt, until white landed in the backcourt?

Is that what you're saying? Don't be coy. Just spit it out.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GqYTHELO2X...of%2Bworms.gif https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.4...=0&w=252&h=173

Nope. Not saying anything. Just verifying whether we may have stumbled across a situation where that time honored formula does not apply. Or whether that formula, as trustworthy as it always has been perceived to be, steers us toward a particular assessment.