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?

Neither of those scenarios is a backcourt violation.

9-9-1 says,

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

As team B last touched the ball, team A recieves legal backcourt control upon recieving the ball.

Thanks Ref18
 

Excellent rule reference, HOWEVER, as I see it, is not totally correct because it only applies IF the ball is in the backcourt.

Willie,
The rule says "a player may not...." In this case, there's nothing that says a player may not do what your scenario describes.
He was not the last to touch the ball in the FC while in team control, the defense was. The ball gains BC status the instant he touches it. So he is the first to touch it in BC status, but not the last to touch in FC status.

Nice Job :cool:

OK
 

I can live with this as a "no call"

Snaqwells's comment, "The ball gains BC status the instant A1 touches it..." made me think of ball location definitions.

I found 4-4-1 to be my definitive answer.

Thanks again! :) I can rest easier now.

The ball never went into the back court, this is a violation.

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 <em>before</em> it went into the backcourt? <FONT COLOR=RED>NO</FONT>. It was last touched by B1.
4. Was a player from team A the first to touch the ball <em>after</em>it 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!

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.

The ball is not going toward the back court, it is not IN the backcourt this play is no different than if A1 steps on the division line while dribbling the ball.

A1 CAUSED the ball to go into the backcourt.

Use some logic, if B1 knocks the ball away and it is near the sideline but inbounds and A1 ,with both feet OOB, bends over and grabs the ball, did the ball go OOB off of B?;)

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!!

OOB is not governed by the same rules as backcourt violations; and the rules are worded differently. It doesn't matter who "causes" the ball to gain BC status. What matters is who touched it last in the FC, and then who touches it first in the BC.

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.

A1 did both in this case when they "caused" the ball to attain BC status.

This is not even as vague as the last time when we were dealing with an airborne ball over the BC, this is a ball on the floor in the FC.

A1 was the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt and caused it to go into the BC by where their feet were, VIOLATION.

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 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?

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.

I think I can answer for BZ...

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

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

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?

"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? :)

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%!

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

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 <b>before</b> A1? B1. Nothing else matters. <B>No violation.</B>

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. :)

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.

The rule is not last to touch in the FC, it's last to touch before it goes into the backcourt (these are not the same).

The very instant A1 touched it, it was in the BC. For it to be a violatoin, A1 would have to be the last to touch it BEFORE it went to the backcourt (that was B1)...not simultaneous with it going backcourt.

Also, the intent is to allow A to play the ball if B has been involved in specified ways.

Not wanting to add more scenarios but perhaps these will clarify our thoughts.

Player A1 standing in BC leans forward with ball and touches it to the floor in the FC then stands up. Violation?

This time Player A1 standing in BC leans forward and places the ball on the FC floor. Removes his hands and stands up. Now he leans over and picks it up. Violation?

Do the answers to these two questions help clarify the answer for the original play with ball in FC off of Team B and Team A standing in BC retreives?

I would say the answer to the first is no violation.

The answer to the second looks like it should be a violation.

Here is the answer to the first question in Tony's (read as Guru's) Backcourt Quiz:

Play #1 - A1 is straddling the division line, with his right foot in the FC and his left foot in the BC. He receives a pass from A2 who is still in the BC. A1 catches the pass but them fumbles it to the floor in the FC. He bends over and picks the ball up while still straddling the division line. Is this a BC violation? Why or why not?

Answer: Yes, this is a backcourt violation. To determine if this is a backcourt violation, we must determine if all four criteria have been met.
1- Team A must have team control. Yes, Team A is in control. Although there is no player control during a fumble, team control exists until the ball becomes dead or B possesses it.
2- The ball must have attained front court status. Yes, when the ball hit the floor in the FC, FC status was attained. Remember that a fumble is not a dribble, so the "three points" rule does not apply.
3- A player from team A must be the last player to touch the ball before it enters the backcourt. Yes, A1 touched the ball last before it went into the BC.
4- A player from team A must be the first player to touch the ball after it enters the backcourt. Yes, A1 touched the ball while standing in the BC


I'm now thinking the original play was a BC violation?

A1 WAS THE LAST TO TOUCH IT IN THE FC BEFORE IT WENT IN THE BACK COURT IN THIS STUPID PLAY.

No. B1 was. From the original play "A1 throws the ball off of B1" then it went into the backcourt when A1, from the backcourt, picked it up. That last contact before A1 picked it up was with B1. A1 touched it at the same time as it gained backcourt status...not before.

No, the origional play is:

A1 is trapped in the corner in the FC, they bounce the ball off of B1 and it rolls parallel to the division line and STAYS IN THE FC, A1 runs around the trap enters the BC and with both feet IN THE BC picks up the ball.

Perhaps you should know the play before you argue.;)

Another approach to this just came to my mind...

When team A has team control...

When a player form team B touches the ball, the backcourt opens as fair territory for all to play in.

When a player from team A touches the ball in a way that it gains/has frontcourt status, the backcourt closes to team A.

I know the play...the location of the ball is irrelevant. It's a red herring. The ball ALWAYS STAYS IN THE FC until something causes it to go into the BC.

At the time the ball gained BC status, who was the last one to have touched it BEFORE that point in time? B1. That is all that matters.

A different play to demonstrate. B1 guarding A1 swats the ball into the air and away from A1 such that it, having not touched the floor, hits A2 who is standing at the backcourt FT line. The ball never had BC status before A2 hits it.

Another...B2 swats the ball into the air towards the backcourt where A1 and B1 both go for the ball. By your ruling, A1 can not play the ball until it hits the floor or B1 while B1 has free access to go for the ball. Makes no sense.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Feb 10th, 2005 at 05:18 PM]

Fine and dandy, but is the ORIGIONAL play a violation?:D

Of course not...by either my new approch or the written rule.