1st half, GV, I'm Trail tableside.

Blue ball in front court.
White bats ball toward division line.
Ball bounces three times in front court and bounces over division line (but not on BC floor).
Running in front court, Blue 14 bats ball to floor in back court.
B14 has one foot in front court and one foot in the air over division line, or back court, when she batted the ball to the back court and then dribbled again.

*Tweet !!!!"*
"Over and Back."

Blue coach, in my back pocket, says, "White touched it!"

Lead came running to me and said there was no violation.

Edited and re-edited for JR:

[Edited by mick on Oct 18th, 2003 at 08:16 PM]

Lead's a little out of his primary, isn't he? Whatinthehell is he doing looking at a play at center? And how can he be so sure that there was no violation on this play?

Note:I deleted my post that was above because it was <b>WRONG!</b> Back court violation by blue was the right call.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Oct 18th, 2003 at 11:05 PM]

"Ball bounces three times in front court and bounces over division line (but not on BC floor)."

If I'm reading this correctly, the ball was in the air and, although over the backcourt, had not touched the floor or any person in the backcourt. If that is the case, the ball still had front court status, and B was the last to touch in the front court, with B in team control, and the first to touch in the back court.

You had the call correct, and your partner screwed things up. I'd explain the rule to your partner, to the coach, and go with the correct call.

[Edited by stan-MI on Oct 18th, 2003 at 09:58 PM]

So what was the final answer?

correct me if i'm wrong, but...
 

it may be just me, but i think you got this one wrong. the violation only happens when the actual item (foot or ball) touches the court. if the ball didn't bounce on the actual court as you stated, then it still has frontcourt possession, even if it's in the air.

now if the blue girl had one foot in the frontcourt and the other in the air over the backcourt but never touched the actual court or line, then she is still in frontcourt possession.

and that would make the play legal.

CASE BOOK p.23 4.4.1 (read here)

Hmmmmmmmm....

For b/c violation, team must have control, must be last to touch in FC, and first to touch in BC.

Seems to me we only have 1 out of 3 here...

Your partner may have been right.

Anyone else?

The way I read it is violation when "Running in front court, Blue 14 bats ball to floor in back court.
B14 has one foot in front court and one foot in the air over division line, or back court, when she batted the ball to the back court and then dribbled again.

The violation could only occur when B14 "batted the ball" and it touched the backcourt.

If so, when this occurred, the following 3 things must be true for it to be illegal:

Blue has team control
Blue was last team to touch ball in frontcourt
Blue is first team to touch ball in backcourt

My argument is that:

(1) Blue does not have team control (ball batted away by white therefore no control by either team)

(2) Blue is not last team to touch ball in frontcourt (white was)

If B14 was able to secure control, and while standing in the frontcourt, batted the ball into the backcourt, it is a violation.

If she only batted the ball once into the backcourt, then dribbled, my interpretation is that she didn't have control until she dribbled, therefore no violation.

It seems that many misunderstand Micks sitch

First, ball is clearly frontcourt.

Second, B has control. W's tap does not alter that.

Third, ball is frontcourt at time B touches - it is over the division line but has touched nothing, and B bats the ball. This makes B last to touch before it went b/c.

Ball hits b/c and B continues dribble - B first to touch after it goes b/c.

Mick had the right call - I'm just wondering what happened.

If Blue was dribbling or passing and White "bats the ball away" you have a loose ball. But, by definition, Blue still has team control...dont they? I think Mick made the correct call...but that's just me. I agree that some might have misunderstood the original sitch...

You're wrong.

RE: your opening statement:
There is no violation when Blue batted the ball,because the ball still had front court status when Blue batted it(it was in the air but had not yet touched in the back court).Blue 14 was also in the front court when she batted it(one foot in the front court and one foot in the air). The batted ball now hits in the back court,giving the ball "back court status". Blue was now the first player to touch the ball after it went into the back court when she started her dribble. Blue had never lost team control because a defensive player had never attained contol by either holding the ball or dribbling it. Viola! Violation- but not until Blue 14 started her dribble!

RE: your other statements:
1)Blue <b>does</b> have team control. Blue had team control in this case, and that team control continues until an opponent <b>secures</b> control(NFHS rule 4-12-3b).The defense doesn't establish player,and thus team control,until they are holding or dribbling a live ball in bounds(NFHS rule 4-12-1). Just touching the ball does not establish player or team control. Finally, NFHS rule 4-12-4 is very explicit- "While the ball remains alive, a loose ball always remains in control of the the team whose player last had control, unless it is a try or a tap for goal". NCAA rules are the same.
2)See above!

What I did:
In accordance with our pregame
<LI> "Feel free to come to me for help. And, if you see me miss one, feel free to come to me. However, if you come to me, be sure, because I will <U>change</U> my call. We will not get into a rules discussion in the middle of a game."

I quickly changed my call and pointed to Blue's direction.
mick

Mick,didn't you know that you had the right call in this sitch, and that the Lead had it wrong? That surprises me that you'd let a wrong call stand for the sake of team unity. Jmo,but I think that a discussion was in order on this one.

Also,there is nowayinhell Lead should have stuck his nose in this one in the first place. He's 45 feet away from the play!

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Oct 19th, 2003 at 07:28 AM]

JR,
...Because it was pre-gamed.
...Because my partner came so far.
...Because if I stick with my call my partner looks stoopid.
...Because this was one turn-over reversed in the first half.
...Because I am un-emotional.
...Because presence overcame the Rule.

This was a half-time, off the court discussion.

mick

4 things, not 3.
 

Which one are we missing?

Ball has FC status.
Team control.
Last to touch in the FC.
First to touch in the BC.

BC violation.

Mmmmmm....I dunno Mick. Like you I like to think if my partner comes to me with new information he's saving us from making a bad call. The way I pregame this is to agree we'll *discuss* something that might have been missed ("Mick, are you sure you got a good look?" or "Mick, did you see the ball go off B1?") and the calling official decides. There are those times when the calling official knows he's right, either because of a rules misunderstanding or because he saw something the other guy didn't. Seems to me the best way to have handled your sitch would have been to put your arm around your pard's shoulder, walk him away from the bench and just say "I got this one, pard, thanks for coming all the way out to help". Look at it this way: at least 1 coach knew you got this right originally, most likely both coaches knew you had the right call, and now both coaches know you let your partner overturn your correct call...I dunno, can't see how this gets chalked up to game management or presence.

BTW, I'm not sure I agree there aren't times when you'll need a rules discussion, just don't make it too often.

I'm thinking I misread the details of the play here...

I defer to the rest of you.

Although you got the call right and my prior post advised you to stick to your guns, on further thought my decision would depend on time, score and situation. If it's a meaningless call, go with your partner's call and get the ball back in play. In a close game in the fourth quarter, get it right.

I admire that you did it this way. I'm not sure I could have knowingly made the incorrect call...presence or no presence. I would have been inclined to make the correct call while explaining to the coaches that my partner was correct in telling me that white tipped the ball but didn't see blue touch the ball before she committed the BC violation. I wouldn't have made it a "rules discussion" issue, rather, I would have made it an "incomplete information" issue.

How long have you been partners with this other official? I can see doing it your way only if this was one of the first times you've worked together. What if the white coach had said, "Mick, I know you know the rule! You got the call correct! I saw the whole thing! Why are you changing it?" What would you have answered?

Indy_Ref,
I have worked with this partner a few times this year and a polite number of games over the years.

As far as explaining the rules, that's what I would have done with the coach (probably, coaches), had partner stayed away.
mick

I hope this is the first (and last) time this happens to you. My college assigner says, "No matter what happens, get the call right. Beat the tape!" I would not (could not) have changed my call had I known that the tape was going to prove me wrong.

It sounds like you were 100% sure of what you saw. Is that true? If so, do NOT make the change. If you weren't 100%, then I guess that would help me understand it better.

Mick, I am changing your sitch slightly,

Blue ball in front court.
White bats ball toward division line.
Ball bounces three times in front court and bounces over division line (but not on BC floor).
Running in front court (towards back court), Blue 14 bats ball to floor in back court (but back towards Blues the front court) and ball bounces in front court once before
B25 gains possesion of the batted ball in the front court.

I tried to word this to happen as a play I was involved in during a pick-up game. No question was raised, but it made me think, here is that sitch:

After a made basket, Ball inbounded to B1 who is standing just passed the mid-court line and is facing his back court, the pass was low and B1 short hopped it
off his hands then chest (creating backspin). Ball bounced into his backcourt, then backspin brought ball back to B1 in his front court.

I am up on NCAA rules only. They say (paraphrased a bit): a back court violation ocurrs when the frontcourt team is first to touch the ball in it's backcourt if the front court team caused the ball to go into the backcourt.

In my two sitch's I have no violation.

Comments?

Sam Iam Sitches
 

As I read it, your only change to Mick sitch in your first case is that the ball comes back to the f/c before blue touches. This is irrelevant. Blue cannot be first to touch after it has gone b/c, regardless of it's current position. Think of the case where white never touches, blue attempts to save it from going b/c, blue's save attempt bounces b/c then goes f/c. It is the equivalent to your case, and it is a b/c violation.

Your second situation is not a violation because the inbounding team never had team control in the b/c. The fact that it returned to the f/c is irrelevant in this case. Pass receiver can be f/c, have ball bounce off body, hands, etc., (as long as there is no player control established on the touch), ball go b/c, and receiver or teammate retrieve the ball from the b/c. No violation.

so you had it right in this case, but for the wrong reason.

Sam, Hawks Coach is right (no surprise there!) that both of your scenarios would be violations, both in HS and NCAA.

The reason is that your paraphrase above is incorrect in one crucial element. The ball does NOT have to be touched in the backcourt. The requirement is merely that (after the ball has attained frontcourt status) the offense can't be the first to touch the ball after it has achieved backcourt status.

Hope that helps.

Chuck
I think we agree, but please note that I have no team control in second scenario, therefore no violation. Different reason than Sam gave, but same result.

If you see this play and see team control by the wannabe pass receiver, then I have a violation as would you. Agreed?

Chuck, I respect your knowledge and admit that I am actually referencing a 1995 NCAA Rules book, my 2001 copy is at home. However,

"Section 11 Ball in Backcourt
A Player May not be the first to touch the ball in his or her backcourt if the ball came from the frontcourt while the players team was in team control and the player or a teammate caused the ball to go into the backcourt. A player causes ..."

In the rule book it indicates the ball must be touched in the backcourt, in both of my scenarios, the ball was not touched while the ball was in the backcourt.

Sam
Simple scenario. A1 trapped at corner of divsion line and sideline. A1 spins a pass around defender, bouncing it in b/c, once again in f/c, then ball goes to A2 in the f/c. Clearly you would have a violation on this play, wouldn't you?

In your scenario, there never was team control established.You can only get team control by establishing player control.You can only establish player control by holding or dribbling the ball. That never happened. Ergo- no backcourt violation.

Tony earlier quoted the four criteria for b/c:
Ball has FC status.
Team control.
Last to touch in the FC.
First to touch in the BC.

In your scenario: ball has fc status, A has team control, A is the last to touch in fc. However, even though the ball attains bc status on the first bounce, it attains front court status again on the second bounce, then A2 touches it. So A never touched the ball in back court. So...unless my sleep deprivation is affecting my judgement, or there is a case book ruling on this that I'm not aware of, I don't think you have a bc violation because the fourth element is missing.

Let me correct #4:

First to touch the ball after it's entered the BC.

This is a BC violation.

Not if A1 is in the BC when he makes the pass. ;)

Although the wording is essentially the same, the NCAA has added an AR that "it doesn't matter where the ball goes once it's been in backcourt"

Bob,

Without the AR I would have had no violation in either case. I have not seen this come up in a game I was calling or watching (pick-up game excluded), but I could see this happening in a close game, near the end, when teams where pressing each other.

With the AR, it is clearly a violation in both scenarios.

By the way, what does AR stand for, and do you know what year that one came out.

Thanks,

Approved Ruling

This year -- and it's just a clarification, not a change -- so the same ruling (I've forgottne the thread plays by now) *should* have applied last year.

Tony --

Really? The ball bouncing in the FC doesn't change it's status back to FC?

It does chage the status -- but that doesn't matter.

The rule doesn't read "touch the ball while the ball is in the backcourt."

It reads, "first to touch the ball" -- no location given.

While your at it...correct #3.

Last to touch the ball before it entered the BC.


While this may seem to imply touching the ball in the front court, it does not.

Example: A1 in the BC throws a pass towards A2 who is in the FC. The ball either hits the ref, who is in the FC, or is a bounce pass that has some spin on it, hitting the floor in the FC. The ball is not touched by any player before it bounces back into the BC. Now, if any A player touches the ball, it is a violation.

Now if you really want to get twisted, if the ball is lopsided or has a really odd spin and then bounces back the FC, A still can't touch it without a violation.

Bob,

A.R 19 clears my question up. It states that it does not matter where the ball is located when touched by the FC team. If the ball goes from FC to BC, the FC team cannot be the first to touch the ball regardless whether the ball stays in BC or returns to FC.

If this had not been discussed, it would never have happened, and I wouldn't have to worry about it. Now that it's come up and I'm totally confused, it'll happen in the first three scrimmages I do, and I'll mess up the explanation royal, and it'll make hash of my whole season.

Dan, is catastrophizing a male-side trait?

Who would want to make a trophy out of a cat's ***?

No, not exclusively...

http://www.iaeste.at/~akarpfen/taxi/disaster.jpg

Cute...when I first read that word I thought she was referring to something that often happens to young male cats which tends to relieve them of their male-sidedness.

http://www.uselessgraphics.com/school2.gif

Me!