Backcourt or not?

[assignmentmaker]

The following protocol appears to work just fine for BktBallRef's Backcourt Quiz:

1- Team A must have team control.
2- The ball must have attained frontcourt status.
3- A player from team A must be the last player to touch the ball before it
enters the backcourt.
4- A player from team A must be the first player to touch the ball after it
enters the backcourt.

but how might it be apply in the following situation?

The ball is being passed among teammates on Team A in their front court. B1 tips a pass such that the ball flies up and over the backcourt. A1 steps into the backcourt and catches the ball before it hits the floor. Backcourt or not, and why?

[IREFU2]

Team B was the last to touch the ball in front court status and causes it to go back court whereas Team A can now touch the ball in back court. If Team A touches the ball after the deflection by Team B prior to it going in the back court, we now have a violation.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
The following protocol appears to work just fine for BktBallRef's Backcourt Quiz:

1- Team A must have team control.
2- The ball must have attained frontcourt status.
3- A player from team A must be the last player to touch the ball before it
enters the backcourt.
4- A player from team A must be the first player to touch the ball after it
enters the backcourt.

but how might it be apply in the following situation?

The ball is being passed among teammates on Team A in their front court. B1 tips a pass such that the ball flies up and over the backcourt. A1 steps into the backcourt and catches the ball before it hits the floor. Backcourt or not, and why?

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) NO (B was last to touch)
4) Yes

No BC violation.

Sometimes people get confused thinking that this play is the same as "A1 catches the ball while standing outr of bounds." That's a violation on A1 because of a specific statement in 7-2-2. No similar statement exists for the BC rule.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) NO (B was last to touch)
4) Yes

No BC violation.

Sometimes people get confused thinking that this play is the same as "A1 catches the ball while standing outr of bounds." That's a violation on A1 because of a specific statement in 7-2-2. No similar statement exists for the BC rule.

#3 in your answer is indeed worthy of capital letters. This is another case, in my view, where several rules are brought into play by one physical act, and there is no generalization to guide their application.

Until recently, when a jumper caught a jump ball, the opponents (call them Team B) got the arrow and ball, on the theory that, first, the jumper had controlled the ball (arrow to Team B), then the jumper violated by virtue of having the ball (ball to Team B).

For whatever reason, perhaps becuase the penalty seemed unduly onerous, the theory was changed: a jumper who catches the jump ball now violates the terms of the jump ball by virtue of catching it (and the hell with control) - ball to Team B, arrow to Team A.

In the 'backcourt' situation under consideration here, with respect to:

"A player from team A must be the last player to touch the ball before it enters the backcourt"

the ball has frontcourt location until A1 (who happens to have backcourt location) touches it: the ball does not 'enter the backcourt' until it touches A1. A case can be made that A1 is both the last player to touch the ball before it enters the backcourt and then the first player to touch the ball after it enters the backcourt. I mean, where was it when A1 first touched it?

The backcourt violation rule language doesn't make clear that it's the player's location, and not the ball's, that is the dominating criterion.

That being said, I would call this the way you would. It 'looks' reasonable.

[blindzebra]

This was 10 pager the last time you posted it.

Both sides have merit, and nothing has changed, so why was it necessary to ask it again?

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by blindzebra
This was 10 pager the last time you posted it.

Both sides have merit, and nothing has changed, so why was it necessary to ask it again?

For the same reason BktBallRef posts his - to educate.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

For the same reason BktBallRef posts his - to educate.

There's a big difference between repeat postings of quizzes that deal with situations that have concrete yes or no answers and having a cause against the vagueness of certain areas of the rule book.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by blindzebra

There's a big difference between repeat postings of quizzes that deal with situations that have concrete yes or no answers and having a cause against the vagueness of certain areas of the rule book.

This play is not far-fetched. I think it's useful for officials to be prepared - to have encountered in advance - plays that may come up. Know what you're going to call and call it - then get the ball back in play as fast as possible.

Do I have a "cause against the vagueness of certain areas of the rule book"? Sure. I think it hurts the game that the rules are not better drawn. I'm not unaware of, or unsympathetic about, how difficult the task of rationalizing, recodifying, etc. would be. but it can be done, and I think they ought to do it.

[Nevadaref]

Jeff,
Remember you are not basing your argument on the specific language in the Rules Book, but rather on some 4 point system that has been devised to help officials determine backcourt violations. Don't get caught up in language that is NOT in the book.

Your play is not a backcourt violation because Casebook play 9.9.1 Situation C part (b) says that it is legal.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Jeff,
Remember you are not basing your argument on the specific language in the Rules Book, but rather on some 4 point system that has been devised to help officials determine backcourt violations. Don't get caught up in language that is NOT in the book.

Your play is not a backcourt violation because Casebook play 9.9.1 Situation C part (b) says that it is legal.

I appreciate that the 4-point system is not presented in the rules book as such. But it is widely used, and useful.

In my view, 9.9.1 Situation C part (b) does not address the play I describe. It says "B3 touches the ball and deflects it back to A's backcourt". That doesn't make clear whether or not the ball attains backcourt location before "A2 recovers in the backcourt".

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Jeff,
Remember you are not basing your argument on the specific language in the Rules Book, but rather on some 4 point system that has been devised to help officials determine backcourt violations. Don't get caught up in language that is NOT in the book.

Your play is not a backcourt violation because Casebook play 9.9.1 Situation C part (b) says that it is legal.

As I mentioned in my last post, the 4-point protocol for analyzing whether a play is or is not backcourt is widely used and useful. Many people have applied it to the questions in BktBallRef's quiz. In that quiz I think there may be at least one undecidable proposition, from a strict rules perspective, #6:

"Play #6 - 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, drops the ball which lands in the FC, then begins to dribble the ball while still straddling the division line. Is this a BC violation? Why or why not?"

Unless I am wrong, and of course I might be, the 4-point protocol adjudicates this play as backcourt, on the basis that A1 is the last player to touch the ball before it
enters the backcourt and the first player to touch the ball after it enters the backcourt.

True enough, Team A has team control. And indisputably the ball attains frontcourt status when it's dropped in the frontcourt. But the touch which makes A1 the last player to touch the ball before it enters the backcourt and the first player to touch the ball after it enters the backcourt is also the start of a whole new 'state', the dribble.

Does touch always dominate, like paper covers rock? I don't know. I know that catching a live ball in bounds does not constitute control in the case of a jump ball.

It would be a great (great as in making life easier, great as in fouls are taken in the order in which they occur) simplification if it were true that, in all cases, a simpler, elemental act like touching always set the precedence with which higher level rules should be applied. Catching is touching without end. Dribbling is touching plus . . .

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

I appreciate that the 4-point system is not presented in the rules book as such. But it is widely used, and useful.

In my view, 9.9.1 Situation C part (b) does not address the play I describe. It says "B3 touches the ball and deflects it back to A's backcourt". That doesn't make clear whether or not the ball attains backcourt location before "A2 recovers in the backcourt".

Ok, I'll accept that this play doesn't make it crystal clear for the reason you give. A2's touching could have occurred AFTER the ball attains backcourt status. You are having difficulty with the situation in which A2's touching occurs at the same time as the ball gains backcourt status.

So, let's go look at the actual text of the rule.

9-9-1
"A player shall not…
ART. 1 . . . Be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt."

"before vs. at the same time as"

In your play where does the player A1 touch the ball? A1 is standing in the backcourt, so the answer is obviously in the backcourt. While it is true that the ball in flight had frontcourt status until it was touched, there is no question that the touching by A1 occurred in the backcourt, and thus coincides with the ball gaining backcourt status.

So A1 certainly does NOT qualify as the last to touch or be touched by the ball in the frontcourt BEFORE it went to the backcourt. His touching occurred at exactly the same time as when the ball went to the backcourt.
Therefore you must ask, which player last touched the ball BEFORE it gained backcourt status? B1 did. Since B1 is not A1 nor his teammate, there is no backcourt violation on this play.

The key here is that in order to be a violation A1's touching must occur prior to the ball gaining backcourt status. Even the four points system contains the word "before." No matter how you look at it, before and simultaneously are not synonyms.

Now if we change your play such that A1 jumps from the frontcourt, catches the tipped ball in the air, and then lands in the backcourt, a violation has been committed.
A1 was clearly touching the ball BEFORE it went to the backcourt as that doesn't happen until he lands.

I hope that helps clarify this play for you.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
And indisputably the ball attains frontcourt status when it's dropped in the frontcourt.

Does it? This is the key to understanding this entire play.

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
But the touch which makes A1 the last player to touch the ball before it enters the backcourt and the first player to touch the ball after it enters the backcourt is also the start of a whole new 'state', the dribble.

Well, I'd say you are on the right track with the dribble issue and you also seem to have the timing of this act correct.
When A1 was holding the ball after catching it and before dropping it, he was the last to touch the ball prior to it hitting the floor in the frontcourt. During this time A1 and the ball were considered to be in the backcourt. He then dropped the ball, it hit the floor in the frontcourt, then A1 started a dribble by touching the ball again. That is what the play says, right?


Ok, now that I've told you that, I'll also state I disagree with the answer Tony has provided to this question in the past. However, I won't post what his answer is or why I disagree with it until after he has provided it in the quiz thread. I do not wish to spoil his fun over there or take away from any new official who is learning something by taking the quiz and thinking about the questions for himself.

[FrankHtown]

What am I missing?? The simple act of B1 touching the ball does not remove team control. So we have a ball still with in team control, with front court status. When does the ball obtain back court status? When it touches the floor or a player in the backcourt. If A lets the ball bounce in the back court, then picks it up, sounds like a legal play to me,..B1 was the last to touch before the ball gained backcourt status. But in the described situation, the ball never acheived back court status, until A, in the back court, touches the ball. Now the ball has backcourt status, and A caused it to become backcourt. I'd call a violation.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by FrankHtown
What am I missing?? The simple act of B1 touching the ball does not remove team control. So we have a ball still with in team control, with front court status. When does the ball obtain back court status? When it touches the floor or a player in the backcourt. If A lets the ball bounce in the back court, then picks it up, sounds like a legal play to me,..B1 was the last to touch before the ball gained backcourt status. But in the described situation, the ball never acheived back court status, until A, in the back court, touches the ball. Now the ball has backcourt status, and A caused it to become backcourt. I'd call a violation.

And you'd be incorrect. It is NOT a violation to cause the ball to attain backcourt status. It is only a violation to be the first to touch the ball if you or a teammate of yours was the last to touch it BEFORE it gained backcourt status. B1 was the last to touch the ball BEFORE it gained backcourt status in this play. A1 touched the ball WHEN it gained backcourt status, not before.
See the difference?