Jump Ball, then . . .

[Freddy]

This was thrown out there over at a kindergarten FB forum today.

I'm thinking this is a no-call due to the "while on defense" exception clause in 9-9-3. But is the blue player's touch enough to establish that he is a defender?

What particular rule(s) do you ascribe to this situation?

Jump Ball, then Backcourt Situation

[Freddy]

Cf. Video...above

[BillyMac]

The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control (and initial player control when coming from a throwin); the ball must have achieved frontcourt status; the team in team control must be the last to touch the ball before it goes into the backcourt; that same team must be the first to touch after the ball has been in the backcourt.

... 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.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control (and initial player control when coming from a throwin); the ball must have achieved frontcourt status; the team in team control must be the last to touch the ball before it goes into the backcourt; that same team must be the first to touch after the ball has been in the backcourt.

... 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.

Then you agree that the blue player's deflection in his backcourt made the white player a defensive player so that when the white player attained player control he was allowed to take advantage of the exception to rule 9 - 3 - 3 "while on defense". Correct?

[bob jenkins]

The "defensive player" exception wouldn't apply during the period immediately after a throw-in before TC inbounds was established. I don't know why it would apply during the same period after a jump ball.

That said, the "right" call is no call.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The "defensive player" exception wouldn't apply during the period immediately after a throw-in before TC inbounds was established. I don't know why it would apply during the same period after a jump ball.

That, I think, is the reason this is such an interesting play. There is, admittedly, a gap in the rules that does not expressly cover this precise and highly infrequent situation. If it happened right in front of me, my trained impulse would be a no-call due to what I understand about the "while on defense" exception in 9-9-3. That might not be perfectly correct, but it arrives at the same place as Bob, and life goes on without a whistle.

If anything, it makes for a great review of the tenets of the rules regarding backcourt, team control, location of the ball, etc.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The "defensive player" exception wouldn't apply during the period immediately after a throw-in before TC inbounds was established.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Because there is no team control during the period immediately after a throwin, and thus, no offensive, nor defensive, players?

Lack of team control during the period immediately after a throwin (and, thus lack of offensive, and defensive, players) continues until one team gains player control, and thus, team control?

Same thing (lack of offensive, and defensive, players) during a jump ball continues until one team gains player control, and thus, team control?

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. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Then you agree that the blue player's deflection in his backcourt made the white player a defensive player so that when the white player attained player control he was allowed to take advantage of the exception to rule 9 - 3 - 3 "while on defense". Correct?

The white player stole the ball after a tap that could be interpreted as the start of a pass (movement of the ball caused by a player who throws, bats, or rolls the ball to another player, no mention of offense, nor of defense). Can only an offensive player attempt a pass? Can only a defensive player steal the ball? Can a player steal the ball while there is no team control, or player control, and nobody is on either offense, or defense? Will intent and purpose of the rule help solve this conundrum? Some questions are best left unanswered (see recent threads on the new NFHS backcourt rule).

I agree with no call. I wish I could tell you why. I know that I could use some fancy officiating language (as encouraged by NFHS new Point of Emphasis) and talk my way out of an argument with a coach, but I'm not so sure that I could pull the wool over the eyes of the officials on this Forum.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I agree with no call. I wish I could tell you why.

I can tell you why. It's a no-call because the player intercepted the ball "while on defense" and the exception in 9-9-3 applies.

I can also tell you why I'd defend a partner who calls a backcourt violation on this. Because the player first gained player control -- and thus team control -- in the frontcourt and then stepped into the backcourt.

As of right now I can skate on either sheet of ice.

[Raymond]

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

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

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

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

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??

[ilyazhito]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

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).

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.