The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   IAABO refresher test question # 48 (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/122-iaabo-refresher-test-question-48-a.html)

Joel Poli Tue Nov 09, 1999 01:42am

The question reads:
A-1 in his frontcourt and closely guarded by B-1, attempts a pass to his teammate near the division line. A-1's pass is deflected by B-1 and takes a high bounce
toward the backcourt. A-2 runs into the backcourt and catches the ball before it strikes the floor in the backcourt. Official rules this a backcourt violation. Is the
official correct?

Ron Pilo Tue Nov 09, 1999 03:09pm

Yes,
I believe that the official was correct in this situation. Due to the fact that team mate A2 was considered in the backcourt when contact with the ball was made caused the ball to be in backcourt. Now had the player jumped from front court and slapped the ball back into front while his/her body was completely over back court but never in contact with the floor.
We have nothing more than a good hustle play.

Think about the out of bounds rule.
A player hit with the ball with out of bounds causes the ball to be out of bounds.

I would think the same logic applies here.

------------------
Ron
Seattle Officials - Women's Basketball



Mark Padgett Tue Nov 09, 1999 04:11pm


Am I missing something here? Wasn't B1 the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt? I agree that A2 was first to touch in backcourt (standing in backcourt and touching the ball), but the team in team control (in this case team A) must be both the last to touch in frontcourt and the first to touch in backcourt after team control has been established and the ball has achieved frontcourt status. Since B1 was last to touch in frontcourt, one of the four elements of an over and back is missing, therefore no call.



[This message has been edited by Mark Padgett (edited November 09, 1999).]

Ron Pilo Tue Nov 09, 1999 05:09pm

Well Well Well,
After reading the different responses here and on McGriffs board.....I just don't know.

But let's think about this for a minute.
A-1 in his frontcourt and closely guarded by B-1, attempts a pass to his teammate near the division line. A-1's pass is deflected by B-1
and takes a high bounce toward the backcourt. A-2 runs into the backcourt and catches the ball before it strikes the floor in the
backcourt.

A1 in front court = A team Control
B-1 deflects pass in the air toward back court. A2 "RUNS" into back court and catches the ball "BEFORE" it hits the floor.
Now if the ball maintains front court status until it hits something in backcourt and A2 is now standing in backcourt isn't A2 the last player to touch the ball in front court and the first to touch in backcourt at the same time.

Now if only the player had let the ball bounce first. It would certainly be more clear as to the correct call.

------------------
Ron
Seattle Officials - Women's Basketball




[This message has been edited by Ron Pilo (edited November 09, 1999).]

Tim Roden Tue Nov 09, 1999 06:38pm

My take on this question. Rule 9.9: A player shall not be the first to touch a ball which is in team control after it has been in the frontcourt, if he or she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

Since A2 is in backcourt and it was last touched by B1. I would have to say false.



Ron Pilo Tue Nov 09, 1999 08:20pm

Tim,
The ball wasn't in back court until player A2 touched. It still had front court status when A2 touched it. As soon as A2 touched it THEN it had backcourt status.

I'll be there next week by the way. I will bring a copy of the evaluation form we use.

------------------
Ron
Seattle Officials - Women's Basketball



ken roberts Tue Nov 09, 1999 08:52pm

Rule 9-9 doesn't mention status. The rule, as Tim mentioned, states: "if he...last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt."

This was not true, since A2 never touched the ball <u>in the frontcourt</u>.

matthewj Wed Nov 10, 1999 01:04am

I must say...I would have to see this as a mistake. If B1 is the last to touch the ball, then it should be a a free ball for A2 to pick up. Of course that depends on whether A2 leaves the floor in the frontcourt and grabs the ball in the air and then lands in the backcourt...of course then this being a backcourt violation.

Mark Padgett Wed Nov 10, 1999 01:07am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ralph Stubenthal on 11-10-1999 11:44 AM
Are we supposed to dissect rules like this and then try to sell them to a coach or could it be possible that the use of common sense should come into play here. For me its a no-brainer---NO CALL!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ralph - I always start the count in this situation. Since we are using a highly visable count, I have never had a problem with a coach. In this case (and in my opinion) the rule is the rule. Same thing is the following very rare instance: A1 shoots, ball hits backboard and caroms into A's backcourt where it is recovered by member of team A. I start 10 second count. As I said, this is very rare, but it has happened. Again, never had a problem with players or coaches on this. I admit it is a little different than the first situation, but as I said, in this case, the rule is the rule. I don't want to start deciding which rules to enforce and which ones not to enforce. (OK, OK - in a a blowout I may get short term memory loss on some things) http://www.ereferee.com/ubb/wink.gif


CINCHAZ Wed Nov 10, 1999 01:37am

Backcourt violation. NFHS Rules 4-4-3. Since B-1 was the last to touch the ball has no bearing on the call. The ball hitting the floor before going into the backcourt does. Since A-2 caught the ball before it hit the floor in the backcourt, it becomes a backcourt violation because A-2 caused it to have backcourt status. Had A-2 been a smart player and let the ball hit the floor before he/she touched it, it would not have been a violation. Just remember to start a 10-second backcourt count when A-2 recovers the ball after it hits the floor.

Mark Padgett Wed Nov 10, 1999 02:01am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CINCHAZ on 11-10-1999 12:37 AM
Backcourt violation. NFHS Rules 4-4-3. Since B-1 was the last to touch the ball has no bearing on the call. The ball hitting the floor before going into the backcourt does. Since A-2 caught the ball before it hit the floor in the backcourt, it becomes a backcourt violation because A-2 caused it to have backcourt status. Had A-2 been a smart player and let the ball hit the floor before he/she touched it, it would not have been a violation. Just remember to start a 10-second backcourt count when A-2 recovers the ball after it hits the floor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


First of all, why would you start a 10 count when you say it is a backcourt violation?

Second, it is my opinion that A2 cannot be both the last to touch in the frontcourt and the first to touch in the backcourt on the same touch. If, when B1 touched the ball, that was the last touch in the frontcourt, then there's no over and back no matter what. If, when A2 touched the ball, that was considered the last touch in the frontcourt because the ball bounced in the frontcourt prior to A2 touching it, then that same touch by A2 cannot also be the first touch in the backcourt. A2 only touched the ball once, it must be one or the other, not both.

ken roberts Wed Nov 10, 1999 08:37am

why would you start a 10 count when you say it is a backcourt violation?

I completely agree with Mark, but this reminds me of something a lot of refs don't know: if Team A has control of the ball in the frontcourt when the ball is batted into backcourt by Team A or B, a ten-second count should begin the instant the achieves backcourt status.

This isn't a big deal if A causes the ball to enter the backcourt since it'll be a violation if they touch the ball first.

However, if Team B caused the ball to roll slowly into the backcourt and A1 lollygags his way back to recover the ball, there's a good chance the 10 second count will expire.

This would be a fun one to sell to Team A's coach. In fact, i suspect that some Rules Interpreters might deem this a Mickey Mouse(tm) call. But until i hear otherwise, i'll call it by the book...

Ralph Stubenthal Wed Nov 10, 1999 12:44pm

Are we supposed to dissect rules like this and then try to sell them to a coach or could it be possible that the use of common sense should come into play here. For me its a no-brainer---NO CALL!!!

Ralph Stubenthal Thu Nov 11, 1999 09:31am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark Padgett on 11-10-1999 12:07 PM
Ralph - I always start the count in this situation. Since we are using a highly visable count, I have never had a problem with a coach. In this case (and in my opinion) the rule is the rule. Same thing is the following very rare instance: A1 shoots, ball hits backboard and caroms into A's backcourt where it is recovered by member of team A. I start 10 second count. As I said, this is very rare, but it has happened. Again, never had a problem with players or coaches on this. I admit it is a little different than the first situation, but as I said, in this case, the rule is the rule. I don't want to start deciding which rules to enforce and which ones not to enforce. (OK, OK - in a a blowout I may get short term memory loss on some things) http://www.ereferee.com/ubb/wink.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mark, I wasn't referring to the starting of the count, I was referring to the backcourt call. Just because the ball hadn't touched the floor in backcourt when A2 touched it wouldn't be grounds for me to call a backcourt. By the letter of the law, a backcourt call might be in order but to call one would seem to me to somehow violate the spirit of the law. It would be pure Dickens to sell. Again, for me, a NO CALL.

gpturner Thu Nov 11, 1999 10:53am

The answer is "No", the official was not correct in calling it a backcourt violation. There was a long discussion about this question in an informal group session of veteran officials on the test.

Even though the deflected ball still had frontcourt status when it was caught in the air by A-2 in the backcourt, A-2 was not next player to touch the ball after A-1 or any offensive player touched it. Since it was B-1 who last touched the ball in the frontcourt, a backcourt violation cannot be considered here regardless of the ball's frontcourt location status.

Here's an example to illustrate this: Suppose A-2 is still in backcourt as A-1 dribbles the ball over the division line and achieves frontcourt status. Suddenly, B-1 deflects A-1's pass to A-3. The ball bounces high off the frontcourt towards the backcourt. A-2, who never reached the frontcourt because he/she is lagging behind the play in backcourt, sees the ball coming toward him/her in the air as a result of B-1's deflection and catches it. Is this backcourt violation? I think not. The question is similar in this respect, since A-2 had already achieved backcourt status before the ball was caught in air in backcourt. The only difference between my scenario and the question's scenario is that B-2 ran from frontcourt to backcourt to catch the ball off the air. Nevertheless, in both cases, A-2 has backcourt status.


Dave King Thu Nov 11, 1999 12:03pm

I believe this to be a backcourt violation. (I think!! ;-) talk about sitting on the fence!!)

The ball has frontcourt status, and A2 has backcourt status. Is it not the same prinicple as inbounds/out of bounds. In the same scenario, if B1 batted the ball toward a boundry line, and A2 ran out of bounds and caught the ball in the air, A2 caused it to be out of bounds. In the backcourt scenario, isn't A2 causing the ball to obtain backcourt status by touching it? If he lets it bounce first, then B1 has caused the ball to go backcourt.
If A2 lets the ball bounce (backcourt or out of bounds) prior to touching, he's OK in both cases.

Similiar situation during a throw-in. A1, from out of bounds makes a throw-in that B1 deflects right back at A1. If A1 touches the ball while still out of bounds, violation on A, ball to B. If he lets it hit the ground first, ball back to Team A.

Hey, I could be wrong. My first inclination was that it was NOT a violation.

DK, very WishyWashy at Work....

Dave King Thu Nov 11, 1999 12:12pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark Padgett on 11-10-1999 01:01 AM

First of all, why would you start a 10 count when you say it is a backcourt violation?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mark, I believe he was saying to remember to start a 10-second count IF A2 has the presence of mind to let the ball touch the floor FIRST, before picking it up.

Of course, we know that we start the 10-second count when the ball has backcourt status, and NOT when a player of team A picks up the ball. There IS a difference, as noted by someone below. (i.e. a ball rolling slowly in the backcourt, players hesitant to pick it up -- your count should be going!!)

dk

ken roberts Thu Nov 11, 1999 12:21pm

The ball has frontcourt status, and A2 has backcourt status.

Yes...

Is it not the same prinicple as inbounds/out of bounds.

There's a subtle difference. For OOB it is a violation to <u>cause</u> the ball to go OOB. (9-3)

For backcourt, it is a violation if Team A "last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt." (9-9)

While it is true that A2 <u>caused</u> the ball to go into the backcourt, A2 was not the last person to touch the ball <u>in the frontcourt</u>.

Therefore, no violation.

[This message has been edited by ken roberts (edited November 11, 1999).]

Dave King Thu Nov 11, 1999 02:20pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>[b] Therefore, no violation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I knew I shoulda stuck with my gut reaction...

BTW, didn't the original post state that the IAABO test key said this WAS a violation?

IAABO & NFHS must use the same researchers/fact checkers for their tests!!

CINCHAZ Fri Nov 12, 1999 12:23pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark Padgett on 11-10-1999 01:01 AM

First of all, why would you start a 10 count when you say it is a backcourt violation?

Second, it is my opinion that A2 cannot be both the last to touch in the frontcourt and the first to touch in the backcourt on the same touch. If, when B1 touched the ball, that was the last touch in the frontcourt, then there's no over and back no matter what. If, when A2 touched the ball, that was considered the last touch in the frontcourt because the ball bounced in the frontcourt prior to A2 touching it, then that same touch by A2 cannot also be the first touch in the backcourt. A2 only touched the ball once, it must be one or the other, not both.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


CINCHAZ Fri Nov 12, 1999 12:26pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark Padgett on 11-10-1999 01:01 AM

First of all, why would you start a 10 count when you say it is a backcourt violation?

Second, it is my opinion that A2 cannot be both the last to touch in the frontcourt and the first to touch in the backcourt on the same touch. If, when B1 touched the ball, that was the last touch in the frontcourt, then there's no over and back no matter what. If, when A2 touched the ball, that was considered the last touch in the frontcourt because the ball bounced in the frontcourt prior to A2 touching it, then that same touch by A2 cannot also be the first touch in the backcourt. A2 only touched the ball once, it must be one or the other, not both.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please read my answer closely. I didn't say start a 10-second count after a violation. I said to start the count after A-2 made the smart play and let the ball bounce in the backcourt.

SportsPlayByPlay Mon Nov 15, 1999 01:43am

I agree with Mr. Pilo in this sense:

When Team A enters the frontcourt, imagine in your mind that there IS NO BACKCOURT AT ALL, and the division line is out of bounds.

Now, think as if this same scenario happened near an end-line. If A-2 caught the ball before the ball struck out-of-bounds, the ball would be last touched by Team A, and Team B would be awarded the ball out of bounds.

In that same sense, think about that as if it were deflected into the backcourt. The backcourt is really considered out-of-bounds territory for Team A until it is touched by Team B and the ball STRIKES THE FLOOR.

If A-2 were to catch the ball before the ball strikes the backcourt.... My Call:

Backcourt Violation: Team B's ball.

Just what I think.

=================================
Zachary "Chunk" McCrite
Indiana High School Official

bob jenkins Mon Nov 15, 1999 10:36am

Zachary --

Read Ken Robert's posting on this about three posts up. He explains the subtle difference between out-of-bounds and backcourt.


b_silliman Fri Nov 19, 1999 08:27pm

Yes, B1 was the last to touch the ball. However, he caused it to bounce high into the air and the ball had frontcourt status. When A2 caught the ball in the backcourt he had backcourt status and therefore he was the person causing the ball to go into the backcourt.

Remember! When answering questions on basketball only use one rule. Do not bring other situations into the play.

Also, each year only 20-25 questions are changed on the Federation test. So review last years test and the new rules changes for this year and you will do fine on the test.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:43pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1