Camp Case Play, What Would You Call?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

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...last to touch before returning to the backcourt and first to touch after going to the backcourt. 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.

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.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
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.

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.

[ysong]

Originally posted by ReadyToRef
The D1 official told us this situation was brought up at a NCAA meeting. Supposedly the officials at the meeting were split on whether or not to call this a backcourt violation.

When I asked him what he would call, he said he would not call it a backcourt violation. He stated that he could not find anything in the NCAA literature to justify a backcourt violation call.

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ysong

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.

[ysong]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

**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.

[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.")