back court violation?

[smoref]

Offense has the ball in front court. A bad pass is made and it is headed toward back court. A1 tries to save it and jumps from front court to throw it to A2. She does not touch back court but when she attempts to throw it to A2 who is in front court. The ball touches back court and then bounces back into front court where A2 picks up the ball. The defense never touched the ball at any time. Is this a back court violation?

[bigwhistle]

Did the ball obtain back court status? YES. Did Team B touch the ball before back court status was obtained? NO. Was Team A the first to touch the ball after it obtained back court status? YES.

Therefore, you have a back court violation.

[Lotto]

Originally posted by bigwhistle
Did the ball obtain back court status? YES. Did Team B touch the ball before back court status was obtained? NO. Was Team A the first to touch the ball after it obtained back court status? YES.

Therefore, you have a back court violation.

I agree, but would suggest a 4-point "checklist" that I learned on this board long ago to look at BC situations:

1) A has team control
2) Ball attaints front court status
3) A is the last to touch the ball before it attains back court status
4) A is the first to touch the ball after it attains back court status

I remember this in abbreviated version as "control, FC, last touch, first touch."

Incidentally, the new A.R. 19 in Rull 9-11 of this year's NCAA book almost exactly matches the original poster's situation.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

I'm not sure of the applicability of those four requirements. As I understand them they are for a player with BC status that touches the ball....

In this case: Player A1 jumps from FC, touches ball (both A1 and ball still have FC status), ball bounces in BC (ball now has BC status), and then is caught by A2 in FC. Violation?

What if the ball bounces in the BC and then once more in the FC (now has FC status) before being reteived by A2? Violation?

The applicable rule 9-9-1 reads:
Be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the FC, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the FC before it went to the BC.

I'm gonna say no violation in either the single or double bounce scenarios.

There is no violation when A1 touches the ball. Is there a violation when the ball touches the BC? I don't see a rule that says "Yes." Is there a violation when A2 touches the ball? I say no because when A2 touches the ball it now has FC status again. But I'm still not certain because of that 'when A2 touches the ball' question.

How about this ....

Is it a violation if A1 stands in his FC and bounces the ball with spin such that it bounces in the BC and then returns to him in the FC?

If this is a violation then likely the original scenario is also a violation... the double bounce probably not because the ball regains FC status before being touched.

I underlined the word before in the above rule quote because it seems to be the operative or determining factor. If it is, then perhaps none of these are BC violations.

Tony, give us a solid answer.

[Edited by DownTownTonyBrown on Nov 19th, 2003 at 05:33 PM]

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
I'm not sure of the applicability of those four requirements. As I understand them they are for a player with BC status that touches the ball....

In this case: Player A1 jumps from FC, touches ball (both A1 and ball still have FC status), ball bounces in BC (ball now has BC status), and then is caught by A2 in FC. Violation?

What if the ball bounces in the BC and then once more in the FC (now has FC status) before being reteived by A2? Violation?

The applicable rule 9-9-1 reads:
Be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the FC, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the FC before it went to the BC.

I'm gonna say no violation in either the single or double bounce scenarios.

There is no violation when A1 touches the ball. Is there a violation when the ball touches the BC? I don't see a rule that says "Yes." Is there a violation when A2 touches the ball? I say no because when A2 touches the ball it now has FC status again. But I'm still not certain because of that 'when A2 touches the ball' question.

How about this ....

Is it a violation if A1 stands in his FC and bounces the ball with spin such that it bounces in the BC and then returns to him in the FC?

If this is a violation then likely the original scenario is also a violation... the double bounce probably not because the ball regains FC status before being touched.

I underlined the word before in the above rule quote because it seems to be the operative or determining factor. If it is, then perhaps none of these are BC violations.

Tony, give us a solid answer.

[Edited by DownTownTonyBrown on Nov 19th, 2003 at 05:33 PM]

Just to show off a little, I'm gonna predict that BktBallRef Tony will say BC violation. So would Padgett. He's the real BC maven.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Just to show off a little, I'm gonna predict that BktBallRef Tony will say BC violation. So would Padgett. He's the real BC maven.

[mdray]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown


The applicable rule 9-9-1 reads:
Be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the FC, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the FC before it went to the BC.

BC I believe;
"A" was the first to touch the ball that had gone to the BC after:
1)"A" had been in team control in the FC

2)the ball was last touched by a teammate in the FC before it went to the BC

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Just to show off a little, I'm gonna predict that BktBallRef Tony will say BC violation. So would Padgett. He's the real BC maven.

Wow. Thanks a lot Juulie.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
Tony, give us a solid answer.

It is indeed a BC violation.

1) The ball has attained FC status.
2) Team A has team control.
3) Team A is the last to touch the ball before it goes into the BC.
4) Team A is the first to touch the ball after it's been in the BC.

These criteria apply to all possible BC situations, not just situations where the player in questionn is in the BC.

[Lotto]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
In this case: Player A1 jumps from FC, touches ball (both A1 and ball still have FC status), ball bounces in BC (ball now has BC status), and then is caught by A2 in FC. Violation?

Yes.

What if the ball bounces in the BC and then once more in the FC (now has FC status) before being reteived by A2? Violation?

Yes.

Is it a violation if A1 stands in his FC and bounces the ball with spin such that it bounces in the BC and then returns to him in the FC?

Yes (unless A1 is dribbling and has not yet gotten all 3 points in the frontcourt).

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

It is indeed a BC violation.

Wow, thanks a lot, Tony!

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Wow, thanks a lot, Tony!

Went completely over your head, didn't it?

[Hawks Coach]

DTTB
If you don't like the answer for this situation, think about the spinning bounce pass, either direction.

A1 in bc, bounces pass into fc, it spins back to A2 in bc - violation.

A1 in fc, spins pass into bc to get around the defender that trapped her at the centerline, ball spins back to A2 in fc - violation.

In each case, the four points were met. The points have more to do with the ball and its location rather than the players and their location.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Went completely over your head, didn't it?

Well....

I don't know where it went, but I sure didn't see it. You guys are too subtle for me -- I need infantile, like Peter Sellers.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Well....

I don't know where it went, but I sure didn't see it. You guys are too subtle for me -- I need infantile, like Peter Sellers.

Peter Sellers, eh? Which do you prefer:

"Birdy num-num" Peter Sellers?
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the war room!" Peter Sellers or
"I like to watch" Peter Sellers?