Backcourt violation?
 

Team A has the ball for a throw-in at mid-court. Player bounces the ball to her teammate, who is in the front court. The teammate bats the ball but does not control the ball, which then travels into the backcourt. The player then goes into the backcourt, retrieves and controls the ball while fully in the backcourt.

Violation?

No. Been discussed here many times. And where the throw-in occurred has absolutely no bearing on the ruling.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

The only violation would be is if the teammate strikes the ball with a fist. See 9-4 :D

The backcourt rule doesn't specify that the ball must be in player control in the frontcourt before traveling to the backcourt. It only says team control. The ball is in team control on a throw-in and continues to be in team control throughout the scenario.

In the scenario, the ball was in team control in the frontcourt (because it was touched by or touched the player in the frontcourt), then it traveled to the backcourt, where it was first touched by the player who was last in the frontcourt.

I'm still not seeing how the scenario doesn't meet all the qualifications for backcourt violation.

Team control (check)
Ball touches or is touched by player in frontcourt (check)
Ball travels to backcourt (check)
Ball is touched by player or team that was last to touch in frontcourt (check)

Then go ahead and incorrectly call a backcourt violation any time you have this situation. Even though you are completely wrong, it will be ok, because 50% or less of the officials you work with will know you are wrong. In the meantime, keep patting yourself on the back for being way smarter and knowledgeable then all the other officials that posted a response.

Subsequent a throw-in, jump ball, free throw, or try for goal, you must first have player control on the court before any actions can happen to cause a back court violation.

IOW, you must have player control and then some action must occur that causes the ball to violate the back court provisions.

In theory, the throw-in is no different than a shot as far as when you can start looking for backcourt violation provisions.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Rule cite?

That is in the NFHS comments on the rules in a prior year’s book.

You need to know that the NFHS backcourt rule dates from when the NFHS had no team control during a throw-in. When that was added, it messed with several NFHS rules and the editors did not properly change the text to correct this. Instead the NFHS only published a couple of paragraphs stating to continue to call all violations as before and that the team control concept during a throw-in only pertained to fouls.

I will locate the relevant language from prior years and post it for you.

Here you go.

POE #4 on page 70 of the 2014-15 NFHS Basketball Rules Book

4. Team Control Status During Throw-in. Team Control Status Inbounds - Since a 2011-12
rules change, team control exists during a throw-in when the thrower-in has the ball at her/his
disposal. The change was made ONLY to eliminate the penalty of administering free throw(s)
when a teammate of the thrower-in commits a common foul during the throw-in. The change made
the penalty consistent with the penalty for other team control fouls. The penalty now is the
awarding of a throw-in to the opposing team at the spot out-of-bounds nearest to where the foul
occurred.
NOTE: Team control during a throw-in is not intended to be equated to player control status
inbounds which creates team control status inbounds. During the throw-in, 10-seconds, 3-seconds,
frontcourt status, backcourt status, closely guarded, etc., are not factors as there has yet to be
player control/team control status obtained inbounds.

Much appreciated! I had this sitch in a game last week, I didn't call a violation because I knew in my head there was no player control, but when I went to the rulebook, I was finding no justification for the no-call.

Seems very odd that NFHS wouldn't simply edit the backcourt rule to include player control on the throw-in.

Elements Of Backcourt ...
 

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.

From Endline ...
 

Great point.

Fist ...
 

In a crowd?

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...tml#post479461

Yeah this is important, because I can imagine a scenario in which the ball is inbounded along the endline, multiple players bat the ball in their frontcourt, the ball travels to the backcourt, where it is retrieved by one of the same players and you're going to have a coach howling for a backcourt violation because they don't know the player control part and they're heavily influenced by where the ball was inbounded.

Often Misunderstood ...
 

Agree.

During a throwin, even under a team’s own basket, if the throwin is deflected, tipped, or batted, by an offensive player in the frontcourt to an offensive player in the backcourt; or after a missed field goal attempt, or a missed foul shot attempt, if the ball is deflected, tipped, or batted, by an offensive player in the frontcourt to an offensive player in the backcourt; these are not backcourt violations.

No. In NFHS rules, a ball that is out of bounds has no status. That is why there cannot be a backcourt violation on a throw-in until control is gained and status established.

Not the proper terminology, nor is your reasoning correct for this situation in which the ball is tipped or batted by an inbounds player. That inbounds touch does in fact give the ball frontcourt status. The reason that this is not a violation is that team control has not yet been established inbounds. There is only “throw-in team control” that only applies if there is a foul by the throwing team.

This seems to be a really big grey area that the rules committee should address, because you would only know this by going back 6-7 years and finding the note you found in a previous rule book, as you did. The above interpretation is not supported by the current rule book, which is frustrating when working with coaches who actually want to learn and follow the rulebook.

4-12-2 and 4-12-3 establish that team control does exists during a throw-in and that team control "continues until: a. The ball Is In flight during a try or tap for field goal. b. An opponent secures control. c. The ball becomes dead."

Is there a perverse incentive to changing the team control rule so that there is no team control during a throw-in? Or adding a clause to the team control rule or the backcourt rule that states that player control must be established inbounds on a throw-in?

Case play 9.9.1 Sit. G addresses the team control issue being discussed here.

The verbiage in Rule 4-19-7 eliminates the need for saying there is TC during a throw-in, 4-12-2.d. It defines a TCF to include a foul by the throw-in team at any point before PC is obtained inbounds.

Huzzah! Thank you.

How hard would it be to add this line from the case book to the TC rule??

All they need to do is eliminate 4.12.2.d, which states there is TC on a throw-in, from the rule book. 4-19-7 already covers a TCF being committed by a team in control of the ball OR by the throw-in team until PC is established on the court.

We've talked about multiple ways to address this (and the problems with the wording over the years) ever since they added the rule.

Welcome to the party.

I've proposed (last year) a rule change to clean this entire thing up. But, it went nowhere.

My proposal was to change the team control definition to be what it always was...begins when a player inbounds established player control. And then, to get the result they wanted, change the definition of a team control foul to include fouls that occur between the time a throw-in starts and when a team established team control.

This would have been the easy way to do it. We already do that with the player control foul on an airborne shooter who no longer has player control. That would have been the least confusing way to have done this.

Frontcourt/Backcourt status is obtained the instant the ball is touched. Control is not necessary.

You desired definition of TCF is already in 4-19-7. If they remove "d" from 4-12-2, it would eliminate any further confusion.

I think that would leave it ambiguous still and people would still mess it up. I think 4-19-7 would need to be reworded to make it clear that you could have a team control foul without team control. As worded, I don't think it would be good enough.