Confucius Says ...
 

How about you are where you were until you get where you're going?

Technically, it is a backcourt violation for the same reason Bob said a deflected pass would be a backcourt violation in this situation. Jump ball had ended snd nobody was on offense or defense. Therefore no jump ball exception and there is no exception for a defensive player.

All that said, I would not call a backcourt violation on this and I don't think anybody would really notice.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

All of those statements are true.

That 4-points test for backcourt works perfectly here.
White establishes team control (and player control) in the frontcourt upon the catch by the airborne player because he jumped from his frontcourt. At this moment the ball also has frontcourt status.
He is clearly the last to touch in the frontcourt, and upon landing in the backcourt he is the first to touch there. = backcourt violation

That's a shame.
I can understand missing a call, but not deliberately failing to make a call.
That lacks integrity.

Intent And Purpose ???
 

That hasn't been the main issue here. The issue has been whether, or not, the defensive steal exception comes into play. But the word steal isn't even stated in the exception (my big mistake), so any mention of a "steal exception" is basically a non sequitur. The debate hinges on the word "defense".

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.

"Defense" is not defined in Rule 4 Definitions, so it's up to officials to come up with a logical, rational definition, maybe leaning toward a common sense, generic, non-basketball-rule, definition. When there is no player control, or team control, and there's basically a loose ball, can a player be on defense? Most on this Forum are saying, "No", thus, no defense exception to the backcourt rule.

How about intent and purpose? The ten second rule, and backcourt rule, were initiated to keep teams from using the entire court to stall and play "keep away". Does this video present a situation where an exception fits the intent and purpose of the backcourt rule?

How about this (following) play, viewed in common sense, generic, non-basketball-rule language: With seconds left in a tied game, there's a loose ball, with no team clearly on offense, or on defense. A red player tries to tip the ball to another red player, but a white player swoops in, grabs the ball, and makes the game winning layup. Would some describe this as "a great defensive play"? Who among us would quibble with that description?

I now know that I was wrong to accept the non call the first time that I viewed the video, so I'm not trying to defend myself, I'm just saying that this situation may not be as simple as many think, especially in real time, in the opening seconds of a game where a loose ball is pin balling back and forth across the division line.

Me too.

The End.
 

Then I'm good with it.
Immediate native impulse on the floor would be to give it a no-call as the 9-3-3 "while on defense" exception, but I can see why it, by rule, should be called a backcourt violation.
Thanx.

You are making the same arguments, again, that were made several years ago on the throw-in exception. If the non-inbounding team isn't on "defense" when there's Team Control, how can blue be on defense in the OP when there's no TC?

You (or we) might not like the answer, but it's pretty clear that neither team in on defense in the OP. And, it's going to stay that way unless and until there's a rule change.

When I work for you, I'll call it.

Meanwhile, you stick to throwing out the parents of injured players.

Embedding is your friend
 

I do not see this as a violation or at least the intent of the rule.

Peace

Proper Terminology ...
 

Team control is equated to offense. The other team is equated to defense. No team control means nobody is on offense, nor on defense. Simple, easy to understand, I agree with it, but where's the NFHS definition that confirms that, I can't find it in Rule 4 Definitions, where it should be if it's that important a concept.

Possible play by play on the video: "White 11 made a great defensive play with a great steal." But I know that this is not official NFHS language.

The final point of emphasis by the committee deals with professionalism by officials ... it is important that officials maintain professionalism ... Key in this professionalism is the use of proper terminology. In an era of round-the-clock commentators using today’s latest lingo to describe game situations to entertain, officials cannot be caught up in that shift to less than professional terminology.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.x...=0&w=252&h=190

Wait a minute? Can a player grab an offensive rebound? Or, can a player grab a defensive rebound? There's no team control during a try? Right? So they're just grabbing rebounds? Right?

Alright, I know that offensive rebounds, and defensive rebounds, aren't official NFHS terms, but still ... Hmmm ...

Technically, it is a violation. But it shouldn't be. There is no advantage being gained by that was not intended by the rules. The throwin situation should be changed to. The rules should be changed to say that a payer gaining team control in the air can always land in the backcourt.

As for integrity, there are plenty of rules that are deliberately not called because they're bad rules or the intent of the rule is not violated.

When is the last time you called a multiple foul? What about swinging of the elbows when it was a T? It was changed becasue no one would call it because the penalty was overkill for the infraction. What about 3 seconds? Every time??

In FIBA, swinging the elbows is still a technical foul, and yet it is still called in those games. Multiple fouls, on the other hand, are rare situations (It is hard to imagine a situation where two players foul an opponent at the same time while the ball is live, so even if A1 shoots, is hit by B1 in the act of shooting, and then is hit by B2, that is a false multiple foul, not a true multiple foul, unless B1 and B2 hit A1 almost at the exact same time). Usually, something will happen to suspend 3 seconds if someone is in the lane that long (someone shoots, the ball is passed to the player in the lane, or the ball is turned over), so most potential 3-second violations never materialize, even if officials would prefer to not call them. I understand your point, though, that officials exercise jury nullification by refusing to enforce rules that are bad, in their opinions.

Actually, what you described is a multiple foul. Even if it were a false multiple foul, how many times do you see officials call both? It is approximately the same time...not the exact same time.

There are a ton of times a year if we wanted to we could call a multiple foul. Just like we have decided that a double foul is appropriate for situations, we have decided that multiple fouls are "never" appropriate unless we want to just confuse the hell out of everyone and be a jerk and give a foul to multiple individuals for one play. Competent officials never suggest we are not using our integrity if we choose not to call a multiple foul (unless you are on this board of course). Double fouls are often called because two players are kind of being jerks, but we often call them when they do not fit the definition as one action clearly happened first, but we suggest it is a great "game management" tool.

Peace