Ruling...
Red team takes the ball out underneath their on basket.
They pass the ball inbounds and a player on the red team touches in at the 3 point line, then the ball travels to the back-court where the same player on the red team runs the ball down. No player on the blue team ever touched the ball only the red team...
Is this a backcourt violation and why or why not???
Thanks Baker

Nope...there is no team control on a throw-in, so you can't have over-and-back in your situation. Simply touching a ball does not establish player control, so there's no team control established...in order to have over-and-back we have to have:
-team control
-frontcourt status
-last to touch in frontcourt
-first to touch in backcourt
Hope this helps...

There was no team control, thus there can be no back court violation.

backcourt
 

I thought maybe that ball control was already established
since they were taking the ball out????

Re: backcourt
 

There is no team control during a throw-in (and other circumstances I can't think of without looking in the book)

Re: backcourt
 

There is no such term as "ball control" - only "team control" and "player control". Each is clearly defined in the NF rulebook. Many violations are dependent on the status of team and/or player control. Learning these definitions is just as important as learning the "live ball" - "dead ball" definitions.

This criteria list is not strictly true but good enough for 99% of real cases.

In NCAA, there is team control during the throw-in but they have exceptions so the same situation is still legal.

[Edited by Jay R on Oct 22nd, 2004 at 05:32 PM]

Case book 4.12.6 covers this, almost exactly same as your example question. No violation because no team control.

Re: Re: backcourt
 

I can not believe that you wrote that without some other anatomical observation. . .

What would be the criterion for the other 1% of cases? You've got me stumped.

Re: Re: Re: backcourt
 

What has bladder control got to do with this anyway?

the original list included:

-last to touch in frontcourt
-first to touch in backcourt


THe other 1% relate to those.

IT shoudl read:

- last to touch before going to backcourt
- first to touch after going to backcourt.

Touching in the frontcourt / backcourt (depending on the reuirement) is not required.

I've read the list so much, I just interpreted it that way in the first place. :)

It has to do with the exceptions that are no longer listed as exceptions in the rule book.

Not what I was thinking...see Bob's post above.

It's not where they touched it but when.

The 4 criteria did not cover the items that were once listed as exceptions but are now simply written into the rule

For example, according to the 4 criteria, a throw-in situation where A2 leaves the floor in the FC, catches the ball while airborne and lands in the BC is a violation. But the former exception, now part of the rule, states that it isn't a violation.

Still not what I was thinking...

I had in mind the cases where the ball hits the official and returns to the backcourt (still a violaion when A touches it even though they were not "the last to touch it in the frontcourt" or when a cross court bounce pass from a player in the backcourt near the division line bounces the ball in the FC on the pass but the receiver has a foot in the backcourt. Still a violation even though A never touched the ball in the FC. ....