The Official Forum - Backcourt Violation?

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - Backcourt Violation? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/18346-backcourt-violation.html)

A1 could not have done both in this case. The instant he touched the ball, it had bc status. He may have caused the ball to gain BC status, but he was not the last to touch the ball while it had FC status. :)

Quote:

Originally posted by Snaqwells

Quote:

Originally posted by Indy_Ref

Quote:

Originally posted by Snaqwells
B touched the ball in the front court.
A then touches the ball in the back court. The ball cannot have fc and bc status simultaneously, so as soon as A touches it it has bc status.
No violation, as A was not the last to touch in the front court. The rule says nothing about causing the ball to gain a certain status; it only mentions first to touch, last to touch, etc.
No written rule has been broken.

Maybe I'm overlooking something here, but I'm with BlindZebra! The ball NEVER achieves BACKCOURT status...so your last to touch...first to touch...doesn't apply!

Backcourt violation!!

Fist to touch, last to touch has to apply. That's how the rule is written.

By your definition, it would be a violation if a dribbler, in the back court, had the ball swatted by a defender standing in the FC and then continued his dribble standing in the BC.

No it's not the same. Now if your dribbler were in the frontcourt dribbling and then the ball went off B and stayed IN THE FC and then they started dribbling with their feet in the BC, THEN it would be the same.:D

BZ, let me ask you about this scenario.

1. A1 dribbling towards division line, still standing in bc.
2. B1 guarding, standing in fc.
3. B1 swats at ball, knocking it in the air to A2 who catches it in BC.

Violation?

Quote:

Originally posted by Snaqwells
A1 could not have done both in this case. The instant he touched the ball, it had bc status. He may have caused the ball to gain BC status, but he was not the last to touch the ball while it had FC status. :)

No, what we have is, as W.C. Fields would say, a loop hole.

The rules do not cover this. The intent of the rule is to allow A to retrive a ball WITH BC status and not to CAUSE the ball to gain it.;)

I can maybe give you an airborne ball OVER the BC, but no way can I stretch that to A1 standing in the BC and touching a ball on the floor in the FC.

Quote:

Originally posted by Snaqwells
BZ, let me ask you about this scenario.

1. A1 dribbling towards division line, still standing in bc.
2. B1 guarding, standing in fc.
3. B1 swats at ball, knocking it in the air to A2 who catches it in BC.

Violation?

I think I can answer for BZ...

Team A never had team control in the FC...so NO violation!

Quote:

No, because that case is spelled out in the rules and A never touched it in the FC.

There needs to be a play covering A with the ball in the FC and the ball gaining BC status by A touching.

Team control in the FC was established. Team control never ended and the ball gained FC status.

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Snaqwells
BZ, let me ask you about this scenario.

1. A1 dribbling towards division line, still standing in bc.
2. B1 guarding, standing in fc.
3. B1 swats at ball, knocking it in the air to A2 who catches it in BC.

Violation?

No, because that case is spelled out in the rules and A never touched it in the FC.

There needs to be a play covering A with the ball in the FC and the ball gaining BC status by A touching.

Until a case play or rule tells me otherwise, I'm using the case play you cite to say no violation in the original case either. the logic is the same. I don't have it here, but does the case play say "why" it's not a violation?

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Snaqwells
A1 could not have done both in this case. The instant he touched the ball, it had bc status. He may have caused the ball to gain BC status, but he was not the last to touch the ball while it had FC status. :)

No, what we have is, as W.C. Fields would say, a loop hole.

The rules do not cover this. The intent of the rule is to allow A to retrive a ball WITH BC status and not to CAUSE the ball to gain it.;)

I can maybe give you an airborne ball OVER the BC, but no way can I stretch that to A1 standing in the BC and touching a ball on the floor in the FC.

"Cause" is not mentioned in the rule, so I can't use it like we use it on oob violations. Have you got a copy of the federalist papers describing the intent? :)

Quote:

No. Since A1 is dribbling the ball in the BC, the ball has BC status, even though B1 touches the ball.

In the play Willie describes, the ball has FC status.

We argued this one for several days a couple of weeks ago. In my game, this is a BC violation. I don't believe the intent of the rule is to allow this to not be a violation.

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Originally posted by Snaqwells
BZ, let me ask you about this scenario.

1. A1 dribbling towards division line, still standing in bc.
2. B1 guarding, standing in fc.
3. B1 swats at ball, knocking it in the air to A2 who catches it in BC.

Violation?

No. Since A1 is dribbling the ball in the BC, the ball has BC status, even though B1 touches the ball.

In the play Willie describes, the ball has FC status.

We argued this one for several days a couple of weeks ago. In my game, this is a BC violation. I don't believe the intent of the rule is to allow this to not be a violation.

Amen!! I agree 100%!

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Quote:

Originally posted by williebfree
I believe a scenario similar to this one was discussed, but I cannot find that thread so I am asking for feedback again...

A1 is trapped with the ball in the frontcourt near the intersection of the sideline & division line by B1 & B2.

A1 throws the ball off of B1 and it rolls parallel to the division line on the frontcourt side. A1 hustles around the defenders into the backcourt. With both feet in the backcourt, A1 reaches into the frontcourt and secures the ball (which has remained in the frontcourt). Is this a backcourt violation? Would it be a violation if the ball was in the backcourt when A1 secured it?

Legal play in both cases.

There are four questions that must all be true before you can have a BC violation. And, it is very important to ask these questions with the correct wording or it will lead to a wrong answer.

1. Did team A have control? Yes.
2. Did the ball have frontcourt status? Yes.
3. Was a player from team a the last to touch the ball before it went into the backcourt? NO. It was last touched by B1.
4. Was a player from team A the first to touch the ball afterit went into the backcourt? Yes.

Since #3 is a "no", there is no violation. The ball went to the backcourt the instant A1 touched the ball...not before...not after. After that point in time, A1 was the next to be touching the ball...satisfying #4. However, since A1's touch was simultaneous with the change to backcourt status and B1 was the player to have previously touched it, A1 is not last one to touch it before it went to the backcourt.

It doesn't matter where the touching occurs or even if the ball ever touches the floor in the BC.

The ball DID NOT go into the back court off of B, you have A1 touching a ball that was in team control, with frontcourt status while standing in the backcourt. THIS IS A VIOLATION!

The key is that the rule doesn't specify cause but before and after.

The rule: "A player shall not be the first to touch a ball which is in team control after it has been in the frontcourt, if he or she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt."

When did the ball change to backcourt status? When A1 touched it. Who was the last player to touch it before A1? B1. Nothing else matters. No violation.

This is completely different than an OOB situation. It's not the same rule. OOB is based on cause. Backcourt is based not on cause but by order of events.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Feb 10th, 2005 at 01:09 PM]

No, we're arguing wih the wording of the rule. Without the federalist papers here, we don't know what "the intent" is. Without that, we have to go with how the rule is worded. Cameron is right, it's worded by chronology; not cause and effect.
I'd have no problem explaining my call to my assignor (or a coach for that matter) or even the state director of officials. My guess is that on this play, they'd consider it a judgment call and would be more concerned that I actually saw it and knew why I didn't call it than upset that I didn't call it. :)

Quote:

Originally posted by Snaqwells
No, we're arguing wih the wording of the rule. Without the federalist papers here, we don't know what "the intent" is. Without that, we have to go with how the rule is worded. Cameron is right, it's worded by chronology; not cause and effect.
I'd have no problem explaining my call to my assignor (or a coach for that matter) or even the state director of officials. My guess is that on this play, they'd consider it a judgment call and would be more concerned that I actually saw it and knew why I didn't call it than upset that I didn't call it. :)

I went back to fix a typo and my post got deleted, somehow.

Anyway, there are MANY areas of the rules that require us to interpret INTENT to judge the play correctly.

Parts are poorly written, somethings don't have case plays that REALLY need them.

The rule and the case play speaks of team A RETRIEVING a ball from the backcourt. I read that as getting a ball WITH BC status, which is the INTENT of the rule.

In this play A1 retrieves a ball with FC status with their feet in the back court, so once again B1 WAS NOT the last to touch the ball in the FC, A1 was and they did it with their feet in the back court, which is a violation.