frontcourt/backcourt

[chasbo]

A1 has both feet and ball over the half court line and his/her next dribble is behind the back and the ball strikes the half court line and A1 continues the dribble. Backcourt? Also can there ever be a backcourt violation during a throw in? Lastly, A1 passes from the backcourt to A2 who has one foot down in frontcourt and catches the pass with second foot in the air and puts it down in the backcourt. Backcourt?

[Lotto]

Originally posted by chasbo
A1 has both feet and ball over the half court line and his/her next dribble is behind the back and the ball strikes the half court line and A1 continues the dribble.

Violation.

Also can there ever be a backcourt violation during a throw in?

Not during a throw-in, but perhaps right after the throw-in ends. For example, if on a throw-in A1 throws the ball into A2 who has one foot on the ground in the frontcourt (at which point the throw-in ends), then A2 puts her other foot down in the backcourt, then we have a violation.

Lastly, A1 passes from the backcourt to A2 who has one foot down in frontcourt and catches the pass with second foot in the air and puts it down in the backcourt.

Violation.

Hey, I was just looking at the new NCAA rules regarding frontcourt/backcourt. Suppose that on a throw-in A1 throws the ball towards A2 in the frontcourt, who does not catch the ball but deflects it towards the backcourt where A3 recovers it. Under the 2003 rules, this was not a violation, since A didn't have team control until A3 secured the ball. Under the 2004 rules, A has team control during the throw-in, so this would seem to be a violation.

I haven't thought this through carefully yet and we haven't had our interpretations meeting, so I could be completely wrong. It wouldn't be the first time...

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Lotto

Hey, I was just looking at the new NCAA rules regarding frontcourt/backcourt. Suppose that on a throw-in A1 throws the ball towards A2 in the frontcourt, who does not catch the ball but deflects it towards the backcourt where A3 recovers it. Under the 2003 rules, this was not a violation, since A didn't have team control until A3 secured the ball. Under the 2004 rules, A has team control during the throw-in, so this would seem to be a violation.

Hmmm...unless I missed something big this play is the same as last year: the throw-in ends on the touch but there is no possesion until A3 takes control. This is important in whether or not we shoot 1&1 (team fouls), not in how the bc rule is viewed.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Lotto

Hey, I was just looking at the new NCAA rules regarding frontcourt/backcourt. Suppose that on a throw-in A1 throws the ball towards A2 in the frontcourt, who does not catch the ball but deflects it towards the backcourt where A3 recovers it. Under the 2003 rules, this was not a violation, since A didn't have team control until A3 secured the ball. Under the 2004 rules, A has team control during the throw-in, so this would seem to be a violation.

I haven't thought this through carefully yet and we haven't had our interpretations meeting, so I could be completely wrong. It wouldn't be the first time...

There's an exception that allows this pass w/o it being a violation. There's also a similar 3-second exception.

[Lotto]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Hmmm...unless I missed something big this play is the same as last year: the throw-in ends on the touch but there is no possesion until A3 takes control. This is important in whether or not we shoot 1&1 (team fouls), not in how the bc rule is viewed.

In 2004 NCAA rules, we have team control when the ball is at the disposal of a thrower-in (4-13.2c). Team control continues until a try, an opponent secures the ball, or the ball becomes dead (4-13.3). So, A has team control throughout the play I described. The ball obtains front court status when it touches A2 (4-28.3a). A3 is the first to touch the ball in his or her back court when the ball came from the front court while the player’s team was in team control and A2 caused the ball to go into the back court, so we have a back court violation by 9-11.1.

Originally posted by bob jenkins
There's an exception that allows this pass w/o it being a violation. There's also a similar 3-second exception.

The throw-in exception in 9-11.6 only applies when a player with one or both feet in the air is the first to secure control on a throw-in. This isn't the case I'm describing. There's a new 9-11.4 that says "When the throw-in spot is located adjacent to a front-court boundary line, the throw-in team may cause the ball to go into the back court." I don't see how this has anything to do with the situation I've described, and if you put A1 adjacent to a back court boundary line, then it certainly doesn't apply.

Can you give a rule reference to the exception you're talking about?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Lotto

In 2004 NCAA rules, we have team control when the ball is at the disposal of a thrower-in (4-13.2c). Team control continues until a try, an opponent secures the ball, or the ball becomes dead (4-13.3). So, A has team control throughout the play I described. The ball obtains front court status when it touches A2 (4-28.3a). A3 is the first to touch the ball in his or her back court when the ball came from the front court while the player’s team was in team control and A2 caused the ball to go into the back court, so we have a back court violation by 9-11.1.

This is how it worked in effect for 2003: for the purposes of a team foul A had control when the ball was put at the disposal of an A player and this special status applied until the throw in ended. In your play the throw in ends when A2 touches the ball, and per 2003 rules so did team control for purposes of a team foul or the backcourt rule. I haven't had my ncaa meeting yet so I'm somewhat behind but I understand the book has been rewritten to make all this more consistent but the ruling remains the same - ie team control ends when A2 taps the ball. If this is not the case then we would not shoot 1&1 if A is fouled between the time A2 touches the ball to end the throw in & A3 catches the ball to gain team control. Last year we would shoot 1&1 if A was fouled in that time period. And of course the ruling on your play had been & remains NOT a bc violation because there's no team control when A3 touches the ball in the bc.

Make sense? Editorial rewrite with no change in ruling.

[Nevadaref]

Wouldn't it have been simpler to write a note that specifies that fouls committed by the throwing team during a throw-in are to be treated as team control fouls?
Instead, the NCAA, in their infinite wisdom, decides to attempt to rewrite the whole rule book and change something that has been taught to officials for years.

[Lotto]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

This is how it worked in effect for 2003: for the purposes of a team foul A had control when the ball was put at the disposal of an A player and this special status applied until the throw in ended. In your play the throw in ends when A2 touches the ball, and per 2003 rules so did team control for purposes of a team foul or the backcourt rule. I haven't had my ncaa meeting yet so I'm somewhat behind but I understand the book has been rewritten to make all this more consistent but the ruling remains the same - ie team control ends when A2 taps the ball. If this is not the case then we would not shoot 1&1 if A is fouled between the time A2 touches the ball to end the throw in & A3 catches the ball to gain team control. Last year we would shoot 1&1 if A was fouled in that time period. And of course the ruling on your play had been & remains NOT a bc violation because there's no team control when A3 touches the ball in the bc.

Make sense? Editorial rewrite with no change in ruling.

You're right about the team-control foul---the new rules eliminate the silly 1&1 scenario that we had last year.

However, the 2004 rules seem to indicate that there *is* team control throughout the scenario I described. Check out the rule references---A has team control during the throw-in, and you can't lose team control unless there's a try, an opponent gets the ball, or the ball becomes dead.

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Wouldn't it have been simpler to write a note that specifies that fouls committed by the throwing team during a throw-in are to be treated as team control fouls?
Instead, the NCAA, in their infinite wisdom, decides to attempt to rewrite the whole rule book and change something that has been taught to officials for years.

That's exactly what they did in 2003, and it lead to the silly 1&1 scenario that Dan_ref mentioned above.

[Nevadaref]

Now I'm confused by Dan's post. Dan, can you please explain a little better why 1&1 is not shot if a foul occurs by the throwing team after they have touched the ball inbounds after a throw-in, but have not controlled it?

[Lotto]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Now I'm confused by Dan's post. Dan, can you please explain a little better why 1&1 is not shot if a foul occurs by the throwing team after they have touched the ball inbounds after a throw-in, but have not controlled it?

NCAA rules throughout:

In 2003, we did shoot 1&1 in this situation. Because of the definitions of team-control foul and team control, if A1 throws the ball in, A2 touches, then A3 controls, if A4 committed a foul

(a) before A2 touches, it was a team-control foul, so no free throws;
(b) after A2 touches but before A3 controls, it was not a team-control foul, so shoot 1&1 or 2 if in the bonus;
(c) after A3 controls, it was a team-control foul, so no free throws.

This is what I called "the silly 1&1 scenario," since IMHO there shouldn't be a difference between (a) and (b).

In 2004, team control has been redefined so that, I believe, any foul in the above scenario would be a team-control foul with no free throws. This makes more sense to me.

However, I believe that it also causes some backcourt violations that didn't exist in 2003, as I mentioned above.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Lotto

NCAA rules throughout:

In 2003, we did shoot 1&1 in this situation. Because of the definitions of team-control foul and team control, if A1 throws the ball in, A2 touches, then A3 controls, if A4 committed a foul

(a) before A2 touches, it was a team-control foul, so no free throws;
(b) after A2 touches but before A3 controls, it was not a team-control foul, so shoot 1&1 or 2 if in the bonus;
(c) after A3 controls, it was a team-control foul, so no free throws.

This is what I called "the silly 1&1 scenario," since IMHO there shouldn't be a difference between (a) and (b).

In 2004, team control has been redefined so that, I believe, any foul in the above scenario would be a team-control foul with no free throws. This makes more sense to me.

However, I believe that it also causes some backcourt violations that didn't exist in 2003, as I mentioned above.

You quoted part of the exception above -- the new 9-11.4 See also the similarly worded 9-4.2 and 9-4.3 All of these allow the throw-in to go to the back court while in "Team Control" w/out causing a violation.

Also, notice that 4-64.5 changes the definition of when a throw-in ends. It used to be on the touch, now it's on player control. (And, while you're looking at 4-64.5,be sure to get the NCAA bulletin on changes to the rules book. There's a wording change here -- but it doesn't affect this discussion.)

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Now I'm confused by Dan's post. Dan, can you please explain a little better why 1&1 is not shot if a foul occurs by the throwing team after they have touched the ball inbounds after a throw-in, but have not controlled it?

I think Lotto & Bob covered it.

[Lotto]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
You quoted part of the exception above -- the new 9-11.4 See also the similarly worded 9-4.2 and 9-4.3 All of these allow the throw-in to go to the back court while in "Team Control" w/out causing a violation.

Ah...I didn't see 9-4.4: During a throw-in when the ball is located out of bounds and adjacent to a front-court boundary line, an inbounds teammate may cause the ball to go into the back court. That's the exception that takes care of things. Fortunately, I'd left open the possibility that I was wrong...

I think that they should get rid of part of the first clause in 9-4.4, so that it covers the case where thrower-in A1 is adjacent to a back-court boundary line and A2, without gaining control, is in the front court and causes the ball to go into the back court without gaining control where it is touched by A3.

[Nevadaref]

So what I got out of this discussion was that college now has team control during a throw-in. Just wonderful. I'm guessing that the NFHS will be adding the team control foul soon, and thus will have to change its stance on team control during a throw-in as well.

And without having the new NCAA rules in front of me, it seems that Lotto has found a loophole.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref


And without having the new NCAA rules in front of me, it seems that Lotto has found a loophole.

No, Lotto didn't find a loophole. The play was already covered under the NCAA rules that Bob listed, and Lotto agreed with that.