Backcourt violation?

[Kansas Ref]

Wonky sitch, but apparently a BCV as per your rulebook citation.

[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.

Check. Check. Check. Check.

Look both ways for an exception. None. Check.

Liftoff.

[Camron Rust]

I have no violation. The player secured control in the air and can land. Yes, the rule doesn't enumerate that exact scenario, but I believe that is what is intended by "defense"...a team that doesn't have the team control gets the team control.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I have no violation. The player secured control in the air and can land. Yes, the rule doesn't enumerate that exact scenario, but I believe that is what is intended by "defense"...a team that doesn't have the team control gets the team control.

It would probably happen so fast in a real game that I wouldn't have time to go through my mental backcourt checklist and I would end up allowing it as an unapproved exception.

On the other hand, on a written test ...

[LRZ]

Team control no longer existed once A1 releases the ball on the dunk attempt (a "try"), and team control was not established until A2, while in the air, caught the ball. If, as I read the OP, A2 then lands with both feet simultaneously, one foot in the front court and the other in the back court, both A2 and the ball have backcourt status, but the offense would not be "last to touch" in the front court while in team control (BillyMac's third factor), which ended on the try.

I don't see it as an exception, written or unwritten, but the application of the rule consistent with the intent and purpose of the rule. I would have no violation--but I would begin a 10-second count.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by LRZ

... team control was not established until A2, while in the air, caught the ball.

Wouldn't that instantly give the ball frontcourt status?

You are where you were until you get where you're going.

I'm not going to die on this violation hill, but would appreciate some further investigation and discussion.

Since it's not one of the listed exceptions (if we, for sake of argument, disregard purpose and intent), can we concentrate on the "by rule" definition of backcourt.

The four elements for having a backcourt violation here are: there must be team control; 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.

The key to a proper interpretation here lies with the frontcourt/backcourt status of the ball when it's caught (holding the ball means player control and thus team control).

Did the ball achieve frontcourt status while in Team A control?

4-35: The location of a player or non-player is determined by where the person is touching the floor as far as being: In the frontcourt or backcourt. The location of an airborne player with reference to the three factors of Article 1 is the same as at the time such player was last in contact with the floor or an extension of the floor, such as a bleacher.

4-4: A ball which is in contact with a player is in the backcourt if either the ball or the player is touching the backcourt. A ball which is in contact with a player is in the frontcourt if neither the ball nor the player is touching the backcourt.

[LRZ]

In the OP, we don't know from where A2 jumping into the air to catch the ball, front or back. Nonetheless, let's change the facts slightly.

A1 shoots, B1 grabs the rebound and throws a long outlet to B2 at midcourt. A2, in his/her front court, jumps, intercepts/catches the pass, and lands with one foot in his/her front court and the other in the backcourt.

If you are arguing that A2 catching the ball while airborne from the front court gives the ball front court status, so that it's a BCV when he/she lands, I don't think the rules are meant to be applied that way. One of the many unforeseen glitches in the rules, perhaps.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by LRZ

Team control no longer existed once A1 releases the ball on the dunk attempt (a "try"), and team control was not established until A2, while in the air, caught the ball. If, as I read the OP, A2 then lands with both feet simultaneously, one foot in the front court and the other in the back court, both A2 and the ball have backcourt status, but the offense would not be "last to touch" in the front court while in team control (BillyMac's third factor), which ended on the try.

I don't see it as an exception, written or unwritten, but the application of the rule consistent with the intent and purpose of the rule. I would have no violation--but I would begin a 10-second count.

So you don’t think that a player holding the ball in the front court near the division line violates if he pivots and steps onto the division line?

The elements of team control, status of the ball, last to touch, and first to touch are all the same in that situation as in the one given by the OP (with the clarification that A2 jumps from his front court to catch the rebound).

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by LRZ

Team control no longer existed once A1 releases the ball on the dunk attempt (a "try"), and team control was not established until A2, while in the air, caught the ball. If, as I read the OP, A2 then lands with both feet simultaneously, one foot in the front court and the other in the back court, both A2 and the ball have backcourt status, but the offense would not be "last to touch" in the front court while in team control (BillyMac's third factor), which ended on the try.

I don't see it as an exception, written or unwritten, but the application of the rule consistent with the intent and purpose of the rule. I would have no violation--but I would begin a 10-second count.

If that were true, then a "touched loose ball" on a throw-in would have the same exception -- as was once debated vociferously on here. The NFHS made it clear that wasn't the case. There's only a "defense" if one team is in control. If neither team is in control, then there's no offense nor defense (at least for this rule).

I agree it *shouldn't* be a violation, but I think it is.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I have no violation. The player secured control in the air and can land. Yes, the rule doesn't enumerate that exact scenario, but I believe that is what is intended by "defense"...a team that doesn't have the team control gets the team control.

The old wording of the rule contained a phrase similar to “a player from a team not in control.” That wording permitted this play, however that part of the exception went away with the change to the text.