Fun With Backcourt ...

[BillyMac]

I originally didn't want to post this video on the Forum because I didn't think it was a tough situation. That is until I later received the IAABO International Play Commentary.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...iRSEmfgrXG.mp4

IAABO International only gives two choices: backcourt violation, or legal play.

Here’s my comment: Backcourt violation. 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.

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

IAABO International Play Commentary: Correct Answer: This is a backcourt violation.

This is a challenging play! The most important aspect of our education and training programs is that regardless of how we feel about a clip, we must understand the rules involved to make an accurate ruling.

In this play, the player in blue (who would be considered a defensive player) secures the ball and near the division line and ends up stepping into the backcourt with the ball. The question is, did she commit a backcourt violation?

There are three important exceptions to the backcourt rule as outlined by rule 9-9-3, and all deal with airborne players securing control of the ball and then ending up in the backcourt. The rule is stated as follows” During a jump ball, throw-in or 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.”

In this play, the defensive player in blue secures control of the ball, and her first step with her left foot is in her frontcourt, and the next step with her right foot is in her backcourt. To adjudicate this play properly, officials would have to determine if the player was airborne when she secured the ball. If she was, the backcourt exception applies, and this would be a legal play. However, if her left foot were in contact with the floor when control was established, this would be a backcourt violation.

In playing this clip at game speed, it is incredibly difficult to be 100% certain if she was airborne or not when control was established. We have an old adage in officiating, “if you are not sure, don’t call it!” From that perspective, these officials were correct in allowing play to continue. Possessions are precious in our game, and officials should get in the habit of 100% certain an infraction has occurred before ruling a violation and taking a possession away from a team. Watching the clip over and over at game speed, it certainly looks like the player has her left foot on the floor when securing control, which would make this a violation, as 63% percent of the respondents have indicated on this clip.

But, by the power of technology and moving this clip frame by frame, it appears this player is just slightly off the court when she initially secures control of the ball, which makes the subsequent action a legal play. Regardless of what you think the ruling should be on this play, be sure to understand the rules involved as the basis to make an accurate ruling. Remember to be 100% sure an infraction has occurred before taking a possession away from a team. If after a game is complete and you have to watch the game film and go frame by frame to prove yourself correct, were you really 100% sure a violation occurred? Food for thought.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video (only two choices): Backcourt: 62% (including me); Legal: 38%.

[bob jenkins]

I generally agree with the analysis.

In real time, I might give the benefit of the doubt to the team that's losing 10-35 (i.e., call the BC violation)

[SC Official]

Great analysis that I agree with (and too many officials don't know the backcourt rule and don't care to learn or clean up their poor terminology).

However, with the lopsided score in Blue's favor this play is close enough that I feel pretty confident saying I would call this a BCV if I was on the game.

[BillyMac]

Maybe I got lucky and was in the right frame of mind when I watched, but I spotted that her foot was in contact with the floor when control was established (she wasn't airborne at the time) and the subsequent backcourt violation right away, first time through, in real time.

I would never consider not calling this in a game and was quite surprised that the IAABO International "Gang of Flour" even bothered to question the play and spent so much time discussing it, and why the official may have passed on the call.

Not bragging, just got lucky.

[Nevadaref]

I don’t understand why IAABO writes that the correct answer is a backcourt violation, yet then goes on to reveal that the video shows that both of the defender’s feet were off the floor when she caught the ball and thus the subsequent landing is legal despite one foot coming down in the backcourt. The proper ruling is not a backcourt violation as proven by the video evidence.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Maybe I got lucky and was in the right frame of mind when I watched, but I spotted that her foot was in contact with the floor when control was established (she wasn't airborne at the time) and the subsequent backcourt violation right away, first time through, in real time.

I would never consider not calling this in a game and was surprised that the IAABO International "Gang of Flour" even bothered to question the play.

Not bragging, just got lucky.

Sorry Billy, but I see a catch and then a 1-2 landing of the feet.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Sorry Billy, but I see a catch and then a 1-2 landing of the feet.

I was wrong. Nevadaref is correct. I was able to slow the video down to 1/4 speed (IAABO members have that option) and her left foot is still (barely) airborne when she catches the ball.

If you are not sure, don’t call it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don’t understand why IAABO writes that the correct answer is a backcourt violation ...

Maybe, similar to the "Fun With Rebounds" video, it was a mistake.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I was wrong. Nevadaref is correct. I was able to slow the video down to 1/4 speed (IAABO members have that option) and her left foot is still (barely) airborne when she catches the ball.

If you are not sure, don’t call it.

Agree...this is not a violation due to the player catching the ball with both feet off the floor then landing 1...2...with 2 being in the backcourt. That is an exception to the backcourt rule.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... landing 1...2...with 2 being in the backcourt ...

Easy to hear in the near-empty gym.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

If you are not sure, don’t call it.

I was sure, which is why I ruled a violation, and I was still wrong.

Now I'm sure that I was wrong.

[SNIPERBBB]

So we are defining normal running as jumping now in the brief space of time when both feet are off the ground?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

So we are defining normal running as jumping now in the brief space of time when both feet are off the ground?

I was wondering the same. Identifying that split second where both feet MIGHT be off the ground at the same time is a pretty tough feat.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

So we are defining normal running as jumping now in the brief space of time when both feet are off the ground?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...otion-anim.gif

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

So we are defining normal running as jumping now in the brief space of time when both feet are off the ground?

Not really. The travel rule doesn't draw any distinction between the ways both feet could be of the floor. They're either on the floor or not and the rules apply accordingly. It seems the same standard should apply here. The point of this rule is really to allow a throwin to occur near the division line without having "gotcha" situations that are not really desirable.