Backcourt Violation?

[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?

[ref18]

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.

[williebfree]

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

[Adam]

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.

[ref18]

Originally posted by Snaqwells
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

[williebfree]

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.

[blindzebra]

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?

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

[Camron Rust]

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.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

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!

[Adam]

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.

[blindzebra]

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.

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?

[Indy_Ref]

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!!

[Adam]

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.

[Adam]

Originally posted by Indy_Ref

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.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Snaqwells
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.

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.