Camp Case Play, What Would You Call?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ysong

Wow. I thought I got it right this time.

I know the feeling.

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.

I agree, the rules sometimes could be worded better.

I can see your argument about how this play might not be exactly within the *spirit* of the rules, but it's still a consequence of the rules.

Maybe these oddball plays happen so rarely it's not worth writing down all the possible exceptions.

Who knows?

[Adam]

Originally posted by ysong
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.

I disagree. The purpose of the 10 second rule is to speed the game up. The purpose of the backcourt rule seems to be to provide a shorter playing court for the offense to work with. In that light, the bounce pass in question does violate the spirit of the rules in that it is an attempt to expand the legal offensive playing court.

[Lotto]

Originally posted by rainmaker
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.

Well, here's a situation that I'm proud to say I got right.

A1 is dribbling in her front court. B1 knocks the ball away towards the back court. A1 chases after it, diving, and tries to start a dribble from the floor. The ball's last bounce before A1 touches it is in the front court. Then A1 starts her dribble, the first bounce of the dribble is in the back court. When the ball came back and touched A1's hand---TWEET! Back court violation.

(Note that the "three points" idea discussed earlier doesn't apply, 'cause A1 is not advancing the ball from the back court to the front court while dribbling.)

I was being observered by our board interpreter, and he gave me two pats on the back for that one.

[ysong]

Originally posted by Lotto
Well, here's a situation that I'm proud to say I got right.

A1 is dribbling in her front court. B1 knocks the ball away towards the back court. A1 chases after it, diving, and tries to start a dribble from the floor. The ball's last bounce before A1 touches it is in the front court. Then A1 starts her dribble, the first bounce of the dribble is in the back court. When the ball came back and touched A1's hand---TWEET! Back court violation.

(Note that the "three points" idea discussed earlier doesn't apply, 'cause A1 is not advancing the ball from the back court to the front court while dribbling.)

I was being observered by our board interpreter, and he gave me two pats on the back for that one. [/B]

when A1 first touched the ball, did the ball break the mid-court line already? Who caused the ball to go to back court? B2 or A1?

If it was B2 and the ball was in back court already before A1 touched it, then A1's action should be legal, right?

[Adam]

YSONG,
The ball's last bounce before A1 touched it was in the FC, then she gets control in the back court. By rule, the one who causes the ball to go into the BC is the last to touch it in the FC.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Snaqwells
YSONG,
The ball's last bounce before A1 touched it was in the FC, then she gets control in the back court. By rule, the one who causes the ball to go into the BC is the last to touch it in the FC.

By rule, the one who causes the ball to go into the BC is the last to touch it before it goes into the backcourt. It doesn't matter where they are when they touch it.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by rainmaker

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. [/B]

Poor grammer indeed. Let me try again:

The backcourt rule does not specify anything about where the ball can or can not be touched.

The backcourt rule only specifies when it is illegal to touch the ball: Team A can't be the first to touch a ball that is under team control, has been in the front court, returned to the backcourt if they were the last to touch the ball before it returned to the backcourt.

Maybe that's better....maybe not. It's not any easy rule to put into words.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Poor grammer indeed. Let me try again:

The backcourt rule does not specify anything about where the ball can or can not be touched.

The backcourt rule only specifies when it is illegal to touch the ball: Team A can't be the first to touch a ball that is under team control, has been in the front court, returned to the backcourt if they were the last to touch the ball before it returned to the backcourt.

Maybe that's better....maybe not. It's not any easy rule to put into words.
[/B]

No, it's not easy!! This attempt is much better. Now that this is clarified for me, I can see what the wording in the book means, but would never have derived that meaning from the book.

And frankly, I can't imagine calling it. The explanation sounds laughable. I guess I'll have to just hope it never happens.

[Lotto]

Maybe it's time to once again post the back court violation quiz that shows up here every once in a while. Anyone have it handy?

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Maybe that's better....maybe not. It's not any easy rule to put into words.

The "four criteria" always seemed pretty clear to me:

1) Team control by A
2) Ball in front-copurt
3) A last to touch before ball goes to back court
4) A first to touch after ball goes to back court.

(Note that point 4 DOES NOT say "A frist to touch IN back court.")

[ysong]

Originally posted by Snaqwells
YSONG,
The ball's last bounce before A1 touched it was in the FC, then she gets control in the back court. By rule, the one who causes the ball to go into the BC is the last to touch it in the FC.

After B2 knocks the ball off, there is no player control at that time. so the FC/BC status of the ball is decided by its location, i,e, which floor or air space it is in at that time.

so if the ball is in BC air space already before A1 touches it, then A1 is not the one who causes the ball go to BC. so there is no violation. (assuming A1 has not touched the ball yet after B2's last touch.) Does this rationale make sense?

Thanks.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ysong

After B2 knocks the ball off, there is no player control at that time. so the FC/BC status of the ball is decided by its location, i,e, which floor or air space it is in at that time.

so if the ball is in BC air space already before A1 touches it, then A1 is not the one who causes the ball go to BC. so there is no violation. (assuming A1 has not touched the ball yet after B2's last touch.) Does this rationale make sense?

Thanks.

Coupla things:

- PLAYER control is not relevant, TEAM control is (see Bob's post)

- Where the ball is in the air is irrelevant. Ball & player FC/BC status is defined by where last touched. IOO the ball remain in the FC until it touches the floor in the BC.

[Adam]

Originally posted by ysong

After B2 knocks the ball off, there is no player control at that time. so the FC/BC status of the ball is decided by its location, i,e, which floor or air space it is in at that time.

so if the ball is in BC air space already before A1 touches it, then A1 is not the one who causes the ball go to BC. so there is no violation. (assuming A1 has not touched the ball yet after B2's last touch.) Does this rationale make sense?

Thanks.

It makes sense, but as worded, it is wrong. It doesn't matter where the ball is in relation to air space. The FC/BC status of the ball is determined by where it last touched the floor or a player. So, if B2 tips the ball toward the backcourt line and A1 taps it before the ball hits the floor in the BC, then A1 is responsible for the ball going into the backcourt (assuming it goes to the BC).

Airspace is only relevant in international relations (unless you own property near an airport.)

[ysong]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Coupla things:

- PLAYER control is not relevant, TEAM control is (see Bob's post)

- Where the ball is in the air is irrelevant. Ball & player FC/BC status is defined by where last touched. IOO the ball remain in the FC until it touches the floor in the BC.

Thanks, Dan_ref. You are right. It seems like there is another differece between NCAA rule and NBA rule.

In NCAA,
"A ball that is not in contact with a player or the playing court retains the same status as when it was last in contact with a player or the playing court."

While in NBA,
"The ball is considered in the frontcourt once it has broken the plane of the midcourt line and is not in player control. "

Thanks for clearing this up for me.

[ncaabbref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

WARNING: The following post is specific to this senario. Don't read too much into it.

Frontcourt status for the ball would be reestablished, but it is still a backcourt violation. It does not matter where the ball goes after entering the backcourt. Nor does it matter where the player is standing when he touches it. All that matters is WHO touches the ball first after it has been in the backcourt.

That definition sums it up for me right there...backcourt violation!