Juulie,
The play I'm seeing (in my head, an admittedly odd breeding ground for hypotheticals) takes place thusly:

A1 with ball, not dribbling, standing in FC near division line. (FC established)


Throws a bounce pass to A2 so that it bounces in the BC (back court now established) before getting to A2 (standing in the FC and not setting foot in the BC). More specifically, the ball bounces twice; once in the BC and the second time in the FC (not an overly difficult trick). If anyone from A is the first to touch the ball after it bounces in the BC, it is a violation, no matter how far from the Division line the ball gets.

Am I missing something in the rules that says this isn't a violation?

Well, first of all, I'm really, really confused about the play you've just described. If the ball bounces twice, once in BC and then in FC, did the someone from team A who touched just tap it, and then it bounced in FC? Or what? What's the order of events here?

But secondly, in your original post you said the ball ROLLED from BC to the basket. That's not the same at all as bouncing once in the BC and then flying up over the FC. If the ball bounces, and is proceeding through the air, then it's still a BC ball, no matter how far over the FC it moves. But in the original post you said ROLLED, so I'm thinking that it's touching the floor at least 90% of the time between the division line and the basket.

So you clarify first, and then I will!

Sorry, can't agree. The three points rule (both feet and the ball) ONLY applies to a dribbler. A player who is standing and holding the ball does not get the same treatment.

So in your example above A2 would have backcourt status when he catches the pass and no violation should be called. However, he does not have to touch both feet and the ball in the front court in order to have frontcourt status.
Two examples:
1. A2 from your play, now lifts his foot that was in the backcourt into the air and puts it back down in the same spot.
Ruling: This is a backcourt violation. When A2 is no longer touching the backcourt he attains frontcourt status. Since he is holding the ball, the ball also attains frontcourt status. When A2 puts his foot back down in the backcourt, he attains backcourt status, thus committing a violation.
2. A2 from you play, fumbles the ball and it bounces once on the floor in the frontcourt. Without moving either of his feet he reaches over and grabs the ball.
Ruling: This is a backcourt violation. A2 is not a dribbler since he fumbled the ball. A2 does not have player control during the fumble and a dribble must be conducted with player control. Therefore, the three points rule does not apply here. When the ball hits the floor in the frontcourt, it attains frontcourt status with Team A still in control. The fumble only ended player control, not team control. When A2 grabs the ball again, he has backcourt status because he has one foot in the backcourt. This causes a violation.

Of course, if A2 from your play were to start a dribble, then both feet and the ball would have to touch in the frontcourt for backcourt status to be lost.
So going back to my example #1 and contrasting it with A2 dribbling the ball instead of holding the ball, we get: A2 receives a pass from A1 while straddling the division line, he now starts a dribble, he then lifts his foot from the backcourt, while continuing to dribble, and puts it back down in the same location. This is not a violation, since this foot never touched in the frontcourt. A2 is considered to have backcourt status the entire time.

[Edited by Nevadaref on Jul 29th, 2004 at 02:52 AM]

spelling
 

"For 'tis the sport to have the engineer
Hoist with his own petard: and 't shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines,
And blow them at the moon: O, 'tis most sweet,
When in one line two crafts directly meet."

From Hamlet by W. Shakespeare
[/B][/QUOTE]

JR, thanks for catching that spelling error. But I was using the word in a different meaning.

I was after: a sequence of events especially when imagined; especially : an account or synopsis of a possible course of action or events

And I told you that Dan would start quoting Shakespeare! :)

Although, since I said Horatio, he purposely picked lines by Hamlet. And check out the etymology of this word from the quote! Dan you old fart! :)

Main Entry: pe·tard
Pronunciation: p&-'tär(d)
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from peter to break wind, from pet expulsion of intestinal gas, from Latin peditum, from neuter of peditus, past participle of pedere to break wind; akin to Greek bdein to break wind
1 : a case containing an explosive to break down a door or gate or breach a wall
2 : a firework that explodes with a loud report

[Edited by Nevadaref on Jul 29th, 2004 at 03:22 AM]

Re: Re: Re: fc status
 

I agree that A2 is in the back court in this situation, but that has to do with "location of a player" (there's a definition of this in NCAA rule 4-43). The "three point" rule that was brought up (need both feet and ball in front court) has to do with ball status, and applies only to a dribbling player (see NCAA rule 4-28.3c).

Juulie, they are describing a pass with sidespin applied so that the ball bounces in the backcourt with enough spin that it changes direction toward the front court. Of course, to make it roll all the way back to the basket would take a lot of English.

BTW I notice that in FIBA rules, throwing the ball in the backcourt is itself a violation. That makes the call a little more obvious.

Let me try one more time, in chronological order.

1. Player A, standing in FC not dribbling, throws a bounce pass that bounces in the BC.

2. On the pass, the spin on the ball causes it to change direction and bounce back into the front court.

3. After the ball bounces at least one time in the FC, A2 is the first to touch it.

4. Referee whistles a violation.

It doesn't matter how far the ball moves from the line, or how many times it touches the floor in the FC.

When I said "rolls to the basket," I should have said "bounced." I was thinking "rolls" because after a few bounces, the ball is going to begin rolling. In practice, this will never happen because someone is going to pick it up before it gets to that point.

Adam, thanks for clarifying. Now I understand your point.

Anyone else -- Is this true?!?! I never got this memo.

W O W

This is absolutely true. None of the backcourt rule specifies where the ball can or can not be touched...only when it can't not be touch relative to where the ball has been or is going...<b>last to touch before returning to the backcourt</b> and <b>first to touch after going to the backcourt</b>. Those are the key elements. The first to touch after it went to the backcourt could be anywhere on the floor.

A backcourt violation is akin to being OOB except that it is delayed and only applies if team A is the first to touch it after it goes to the backcourt.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Jul 29th, 2004 at 11:40 AM]

Camron, other than the part about "when it can't not be touch", this is very helpful. But geez, how many total human beings -- including all players, coaches, refs and fans -- are going to get this right in a game? I'm betting it's less than 100. And how could anyone ever explain it!"!?!? It's way too confusing.

Camron, I don't find this helpful at all. It's not the same at all, even with an exception for the delay. On an oob the ball achieves oob status as soon as it touches the floor, but in the case of the bc, it effectively retains bc status no matter where it gets to in the fc. That's too far apart to use as a comparison.

According to 2003 NCAA rules, it is not a violation because A2 is not "in his back court", is that right?

Section 11. Ball in Back Court
Art. 1. A player shall not be 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 the player or a teammate caused the ball to go into the
back court.

**in his or her back court** refers to the ball, not the player.

Wow. I thought I got it right this time. but is it because of me or the wording does seem ambiguous?

What is the intention of the back court violation anyway? to make game tempo faster? this bounce pass does not seem to violate any basketball "spirit" to me.

Thanks.