backcourt

[Paul LeBoutillier]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Padgett

The ball could be passed into the front court and hit an official, then bounce back into the back court.

OK, that's the scenario, now tell me (and any other dope-heads like me) why hitting the official standing in the front court on a bad pass from back court would establish front court status for the ball? Doesn't there need to be "all three" in the front court?

Honestly guys, when questions like this come up I wonder how I ever pulled a 98 on last year's part 2 test! Sheesh!

[mick]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul LeBoutillier

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

OK, that's the scenario, now tell me (and any other dope-heads like me) why hitting the official standing in the front court on a bad pass from back court would establish front court status for the ball? Doesn't there need to be "all three" in the front court?

Honestly guys, when questions like this come up I wonder how I ever pulled a 98 on last year's part 2 test! Sheesh!

Paul,
All three on a dribble only.
mick

[Ralph Stubenthal]

A1 throws the ball from backcourt to A2. A2 is standing with 1 foot in front and 1 foot in back court. He jumps to catch the ball and lands in backcourt. Violation or not? Did he have front or back court status when he jumped and caught the ball?

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Ralph Stubenthal
A1 throws the ball from backcourt to A2. A2 is standing with 1 foot in front and 1 foot in back court. He jumps to catch the ball and lands in backcourt. Violation or not? Did he have front or back court status when he jumped and caught the ball?

If he was straddling the line, he's in the BC. Let's say A2 was standing in the FC, jumped, caught the ball, and then landed in the BC. This is a BC violation. Why? Because A2 was in the FC when he caught the ball. It doesn't matter that his ffet weren't touching the floor. In basketball, you are were you left the floor when you're airborne.

If the pass had been a throw-in, it wouldn't have mattered because 9-9 Exception 1 would apply. The ball would still have attained FC status when A2 caught it, but the exception allows him to land in the BC on a throw-in.

To expound on the "three points," it's an area that a lot of officials get confused about. Just remember that the rule is referring to dribbling the ball from the BC to the FC. When the ball is passed into the FC, FC status has been attained as soon as the ball hits the floor, a player, an official or the backboard or rim in the FC.

I hope that helps.

[Ralph Stubenthal]

I appreciate your answer but you expounded on everything except the question I asked about. When a player jumps into the air with 1 foot out of bounds and catches the ball, he is OOB. With that in mind, I fail to understand why the player who jumps to catch a pass with a foot in front and the other in back court has backcourt status. Please explain, thAnks, Ralph.

[rpwall]

Originally posted by Ralph Stubenthal
With that in mind, I fail to understand why the player who jumps to catch a pass with a foot in front and the other in back court has backcourt status.

I think the player you describe does have backcourt status.

NFHS 4-35-3 (paraphrased) says an airborne player's location is determined by where he/she was last in contact with the floor.

NFHS 4-3-2 says "A ball which is in contact with a player is in the frontcourt if neither the ball nor the player is touching the backcourt."

Based on the latter, I would say the player has backcourt status before he/she became airborne. Based on the former, he/she would retain that status while airborne.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Ralph Stubenthal
I appreciate your answer but you expounded on everything except the question I asked about. When a player jumps into the air with 1 foot out of bounds and catches the ball, he is OOB. With that in mind, I fail to understand why the player who jumps to catch a pass with a foot in front and the other in back court has backcourt status. Please explain, thAnks, Ralph.

Ralph,

Maybe this will help, if I understand what you're asking:

1.
A player needs both feet in the front court (or both + the
ball if dribbling) in order to obtain FC status.
2.
A player who jumps retains the status he had while on the
floor (as you pointed out in your OOB example).

So, a player with 1 foot in the BC has BC status. When he
jumps he still has BC status. He can catch the ball and
legally land in the FC or the BC, but remember to keep
counting to 10 if he lands BC.
Also, remember it's legal for a defensive player to
jump from his FC, steal a pass and land in his BC (exception
to the rule to not penalize good play) and all bets are off
generally on a throw in and jump ball. In these cases it is
a violation if the player who catches the ball in the air
had FC status (jumped from FC) and *passes* the ball to a
team mate with BC status. I think that covers all of it.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Ralph Stubenthal
I appreciate your answer but you expounded on everything except the question I asked about. When a player jumps into the air with 1 foot out of bounds and catches the ball, he is OOB. With that in mind, I fail to understand why the player who jumps to catch a pass with a foot in front and the other in back court has backcourt status. Please explain, thAnks, Ralph.

It's the same reason that your first player was OOB.

If a player is straddling the sideline, one foot OOB and one foot inbounds, he is OOB.

Likewise, if a player is straddling the division line, one foot in the FC and one foot in the BC, he is in the BC.

As Dan said, both feet must be inbounds for the player to be inbounds and both feet must be in the FC for the player to be in the FC.

Read 4-35-2. This rule encompasses everything we're talking about here.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Nov 7th, 2000 at 09:33 AM]

[Ralph Stubenthal]

Thanks BktBallOfficial and others, I think I've got it now.

[Richard Ogg]

One additional note on the "jumping and landing front court then back court": There is an exception for a throw-in. A player can jump from the front court to catch the ball, land with one foot in the front court, then the second in the back court and he has legitiment back court status (no violation). The exception does not apply if a foot is touching the front court when he catches the ball.

The play I see more often and really confuses people is two guards bring the ball down the court. The player with the ball crosses the division line, establishing front court status. He then turns and passes the ball to his team mate, who leaps from the back court, catches the ball over the front court (ball does not break plane), and lands in the front court. The call is "over-and-back" because the ball achieved back court status when caught by the player with back court status (because he last touched the floor in the back court).

[Ralph Stubenthal]

I think 1 more situation should be mentioned. A1 is dribbling in backcourt towards frontcourt. We all know that to gain frontcourt status he must cross the line with both feet and the ball. But, what if he is stopped by a guard at the division line? If his pivot foot remains in backcourt, he can touch frontcourt and then go back to backcourt with his non-pivot foot without penalty. But, if his pivot foot is in frontcourt and his non-pivot foot is in backcourt, once the non-pivot foot goes to frontcourt it must remain there because if the non-pivot foot returns to backcourt---violation. Does everyone agree with this?

[mick]

Originally posted by Ralph Stubenthal
I think 1 more situation should be mentioned. A1 is dribbling in backcourt towards frontcourt. We all know that to gain frontcourt status he must cross the line with both feet and the ball. But, what if he is stopped by a guard at the division line? If his pivot foot remains in backcourt, he can touch frontcourt and then go back to backcourt with his non-pivot foot without penalty. But, if his pivot foot is in frontcourt and his non-pivot foot is in backcourt, once the non-pivot foot goes to frontcourt it must remain there because if the non-pivot foot returns to backcourt---violation. Does everyone agree with this?

Ralph,
Your wording could read "...once the (BC) non-pivot foot is lifted ,it may not be returned to the backcourt without violating. (Holding the ball is assumed)
mick

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Ralph Stubenthal
But, if his pivot foot is in frontcourt and his non-pivot foot is in backcourt, once the non-pivot foot goes to frontcourt it must remain there because if the non-pivot foot returns to backcourt---violation. Does everyone agree with this?

Yes and no. The pivot foot is in the FC. The foot in the BC doesn't need to be placed in the FC for the player to attain FC status. As soon as the foot in the BC is lifted, the player and ball are now in the FC. He doesn't have to put the foot down in the FC to be in the FC. If he simply lifts the foot in the BC and places it back down in the BC, we have a violation.