back court or not????

[fastballbaker]

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

[rockyroad]

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...

[mick]

Originally posted by fastballbaker
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

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

[fastballbaker]

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

[Nu1]

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

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

[Mark Padgett]

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

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by rockyroad
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...

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

[Jay R]

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]

[AirForceDude]

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

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
There is no such term as "ball control"

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

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
This criteria list is not strictly true but good enough for 99% of real cases.

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

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

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

What has bladder control got to do with this anyway?

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

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

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.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
IT shoudl read:

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

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

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

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

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