Backcourt violation?

[fiasco]

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?

[Raymond]

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

[Zoochy]

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

The only violation would be is if the teammate strikes the ball with a fist.

In a crowd?

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

Originally Posted by mick

To me the reason for the fist rule is to reduce the potential for players swatting at balls or playing defense (in the vicinity of an opponent) with fists, which could certainly be intimidating and unsporting.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This is almost exactly what my interpreter said after I asked him about the this rule last year. I had called the violation after one player punched the ball to his teammate, while both were alone, with no defenders, in the backcourt. I won't make that call again.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... called this exact situation a violation several years ago, was politely questioned by my partner after the game, and asked my local interpreter about it. I was told that the "fist" violation should only be called when the ball is punched in a crowd, i.e. the intent of the rule is to avoid injury.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

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)

[johnny d]

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by fiasco

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)

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

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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.

Rule cite?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by fiasco

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

... where the throw-in occurred has absolutely no bearing on the ruling.

Great point.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Great point.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by fiasco

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.

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.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by fiasco

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. 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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

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.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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?