a1 making throw in from halfcourt, makes throw in to a2 who is airbourne from the front court, catches the ball and lands in the back court. and the call is? similar situation; a1 making throw in from halfcourt, makes throw in to a2 who is airbournefrom the frontcourt, catches the ball and land with one foot in the front court and in a normal landing the other foot in the back court. and the call is?

No Call
9.9.3 in the rule book says "a player from the team not in control (defensive player or during a jump ball or throw-in) may legally jump form his/her frontcourt, secure ocntrol of the ball with both feet off the floor and reutrn to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt."

Agree, nothing in either situation as there is no team control during a throwin.

No call is correct, but, do remember
to start a 10 second back court count.

Now as an added bonus:

If the player is standing in his/her frontcourt and catches the in bounds pass with one foot in the frontcourt and the other foot in the air; the player has established team control in his/her frontcourt therefore if they set the other foot down in the backcourt, it would be a backcourt violation.

Here's a question.
How about a jump stop on this play? A2 catches the ball airborne, one foot down in FC and jump stop landing in BC.
Violation?

My Interpretation:

1st I refer back to 9.1.3 where the player can land on one foot in frontcourt than the other in back.

2nd in 4.43.2b2 If one foot is one the floor: the player may jump off that foot and simultaneously land on both. (neither foot can be a pivot in this case)

Because 9.9.3 says that teamcontrol is not established till the airborne player has both feet on the floor and 4.43 says that it is legal to jump off of one foot and land on both:

I would say NO VIOLATION.

Remember just my interpretation

[Edited by joseph2493 on Dec 27th, 2004 at 02:40 PM]

Team control is established when a player of that team gains player control. Player control is established when a player is holding or dribbling a live ball. Neither of those requires two, one or any feet on the floor.

If you're referring to the exception about the airborne player (quoted as 9.3.3 above), realize this is an exception to the general rule. If a player in front court, in control of the ball, touches back court it is a violation, except for the exception. The exception also uses the words "normal landing." A jump stop is not a normal landing. The jump stop situation has the player in control in the front court jumping to back court. Violation.

First of all "9.9.3" is not an exception it is a rule.

And like I said it is my interpretation of the rule. It is not spelled out in black and white, therefore leaving it up to interpretation.

When you put the two rules back to back 9.9.3 and 4.43 that the quetions ask would be "no violation"

I don't have my books in front of me, so I'm unable to quote section numbers, except as they have been previously quoted in this thread.

But whichever section it is that talks about the airborne player starting from front court..., that is the exception I am talking about. Yes, it is a rule. But it doesn't stand alone. It creates an exception to the general rule governing the backcourt violation.

4-43 (FWIW, rules cites use dashes, case cites use dots) is a rule governing the traveling violation. It talks about which foot is the pivot foot. It is also the rule that makes the jump stop legal. It has nothing to do with backcourt violations. In the situation given, the player would definitely not be guilty of a traveling violation.

It is my interpretation that in the situation given, you have team control by a player in the front court, you do not have a "normal landing," and he ends up in back court. I think we have a violation here.

I don't have my books in front of me, so I'm unable to quote section numbers, except as they have been previously quoted in this thread.

But whichever section it is that talks about the airborne player starting from front court..., that is the exception I am talking about. Yes, it is a rule. But it doesn't stand alone. It creates an exception to the general rule governing the backcourt violation.

4-43 (FWIW, rules cites use dashes, case cites use dots) is a rule governing the traveling violation. It talks about which foot is the pivot foot. It is also the rule that makes the jump stop legal. It has nothing to do with backcourt violations. In the situation given, the player would definitely not be guilty of a traveling violation.

It is my interpretation that in the situation given, you have team control by a player in the front court, you do not have a "normal landing," and he ends up in back court. I think we have a violation here. [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm not trying to beat this up, I just wanted you understand that it was just my interpretation and that nowhere in the book does it have an exact quote.

I went out to my truck after reading your last post and got my books to find something and have been unable to do so.

The rule about the one foot in the front court second in the back is on page 58 in the Rule Book. Rule 9 Section 9 Art. 3.

If I find any hard evidence either way I'll let you know.

I'm not trying to beat this up, I just wanted you understand that it was just my interpretation and that nowhere in the book does it have an exact quote.

I went out to my truck after reading your last post and got my books to find something and have been unable to do so.

The rule about the one foot in the front court second in the back is on page 58 in the Rule Book. Rule 9 Section 9 Art. 3.

If I find any hard evidence either way I'll let you know.
[/B][/QUOTE]Please do :)

I doubt you'll find any. The whole issue depends on whether a "jump stop" is a "normal landing." We know a normal landing is allowed, but that term is not defined.

BITS has the opinion that a jump stop is not a normal landing.

You have the opinion it is.

I agree with .... Tony. ;)

Unfortunately, this is not what 9-9-3 says. The folks on this forum are extremely good with the rules and will make you pay attention to the details. What that article really says is that this player is EXEMPT from the usual backcourt violation when undertaking the actions listed therein. It does not state that team control is established in a different manner.

For what it's worth, I agree with BITS that a jump stop is not "a normal landing" and this should be a backcourt violation. The proof for me that this is not a normal landing lies in that fact that this way of landing has to be specifically written into the traveling rule to make it a legal action (not a traveling violation). Therefore, it is different and not normal.

Lastly, I'll contribute that in the 2003-04 Rules Book 9-9-3 was rewritten. Until that season the material in Article 3 appeared as exceptions and a note to the previous two Articles in the Rules Book. This is why some of the vets will refer to this as the airborne exception to the backcourt rule, although it is now actually structured as a rule.

Unfortunately, this is not what 9-9-3 says. The folks on this forum are extremely good with the rules and will make you pay attention to the details. What that article really says is that this player is EXEMPT from the usual backcourt violation when undertaking the actions listed therein. It does not state that team control is established in a different manner.

For what it's worth, I agree with BITS that a jump stop is not "a normal landing" and this should be a backcourt violation. The proof for me that this is not a normal landing lies in that fact that this way of landing has to be specifically written into the traveling rule to make it a legal action (not a traveling violation). Therefore, it is different and not normal.

Lastly, I'll contribute that in the 2003-04 Rules Book 9-9-3 was rewritten. Until that season the material in Article 3 appeared as exceptions and a note to the previous two Articles in the Rules Book. This is why some of the vets will refer to this as the airborne exception to the backcourt rule, although it is now actually structured as a rule.

[/B][/QUOTE]

OK, on that note. It is written into the traveling rules that "if one foot is on the floor the player may jump off that foot and simultaneously land on both." 4-43-2b2