Clarification on Backcourt Violation

[Jack]

Player A1 dribbles into the forecourt and terminates his dribble. Player B1 knocks the ball free and it rolls into the backcourt.
Player A1 retrieves the ball and is called for a backcourt violation.

The referee explained that even though B1 had touched the ball and knocked it loose - the referee saw the ball touch the leg of A1 after it was knocked loose and prior to going into the back court. Therefore it was a backcout violation.

Is this the correct call?

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Jack
Player A1 dribbles into the forecourt and terminates his dribble. Player B1 knocks the ball free and it rolls into the backcourt.
Player A1 retrieves the ball and is called for a backcourt violation.

The referee explained that even though B1 had touched the ball and knocked it loose - the referee saw the ball touch the leg of A1 after it was knocked loose and prior to going into the back court. Therefore it was a backcout violation.

Is this the correct call?

It is. A1 was the last to touch the ball, which had front court location while Team A was in control, in the frontcourt, and then first to touch it in the backcourt.

[lmeadski]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

It is. A1 was the last to touch the ball, which had front court location while Team A was in control, in the frontcourt, and then first to touch it in the backcourt.

Yep, correct call.

[Jack]

so- to generalize- once the offensive team establishes control in the frontcourt, any subsequent determination of a backcourt violation is based on which team touched it last in the front court prior to the ball returning to the backcourt.

Would this be true regardless of how many times the defense touched it or if they established control?

Example- A1 establishes control in the frontcourt. B1 steals the ball establishes control and remains on the same end of the court. A1 knocks the ball away from B1 into the opposite end (backcourt for team A) and retrieves it.

Is this a backcourt violation on A1?

[Rick Durkee]

It doesn't matter how many times the ball is touched, as long as Team A didn't lose control, if they touched it last in the frontcourt, it is a backcourt violation for them to touch it first in the backcourt.

In your other example, team control for Team A ended when B1 gained control of the ball. Team A would have to re-establish team control in order to be able to call them for a backcourt violation.

[Adam]

Originally posted by Jack
so- to generalize- once the offensive team establishes control in the frontcourt, any subsequent determination of a backcourt violation is based on which team touched it last in the front court prior to the ball returning to the backcourt.

Would this be true regardless of how many times the defense touched it or if they established control?

Example- A1 establishes control in the frontcourt. B1 steals the ball establishes control and remains on the same end of the court. A1 knocks the ball away from B1 into the opposite end (backcourt for team A) and retrieves it.

Is this a backcourt violation on A1?

If B1 establishes control, then A is now on defense. The number of times it is touched isn't relevant, but team control is.

[co2ice]

No, because B was the last to have team contol in A's front court ( B's back court)

[BktBallRef]

A partner missed one tonight.

Team A has the ball in their FC. Ball is knocked loose, A1 saves the ball from going OOB, flips it over her head, where it bounces once in the BC. A2, standing in the FC, reaches over and retrieves the ball.

No call.

[Adam]

Does he know he missed it?

[RookieDude]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
BktBallRef, I believe the language of 9-9-1 doesn't make clear whether it means
'ball location' or 'player location'.

You presented this situation:

"Team A has the ball in their FC. Ball is knocked loose, A1 saves the
ball from going OOB, flips it over her head, where it bounces once in the
BC. A2, standing in the FC, reaches over and retrieves the ball."

I agree with you about what the call should be. No violation. I just don't think that's what
the current rule mandates.

I have simplified the situation, removing elements which I believe we both agree
on and which don't impact the situation under consideration.

Team A's players are passing the ball amongst themselves in the
frontcourt. An errant pass hits A1, who is near midcourt, on the head. The
ball bounces in the backcourt. A1 turns and, while standing in the
frontcourt, catches the ball in the air.

Rule 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/she or a teammate last
touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went into the
backcourt."

For clarity, I'm going to modify the language and grammar of 9-9-1 without changing
the content of the rule:

1. Place the temporal constraint first and replace the pronoun with its
referent. 9-9-1 then reads:

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

2. Remove from the 'if' clause those elements that have no application to
the situation under consideration and replace the pronoun with its referent.
9-9-1 then reads:

"After the ball has been in team control in the frontcourt, a player shall
not be the first to touch a ball, if she last touched the ball in the
frontcourt before the ball went into the backcourt."

Apply the rule:

1. Was the ball in Team A's control in the frontcourt? Yes.

2. Was A1 last to touch "the ball in the frontcourt"? Yes.

3. Had the ball gone into the backcourt before A1 touched it a second,
consecutive time? Yes.

Thus, under 9-9-1, it is a backcourt violation.

I believe you're reading the rule as though it said:

"A player:

1) whose team has control of a ball that has been in the front court, and
2) who has backcourt location

shall not be the first to touch a ball if he/she or a teammate having
frontcourt location last touched or was touched by the ball."

I think that's what it should say . . .

Sic Transiit Gloria Monday

...not to speak for BBR...but, I think he was saying his partner missed the call by no-calling it.

[assignmentmaker]

Could be! I am rethinking, based on your suggestion.

[Edited by assignmentmaker on Feb 14th, 2006 at 02:22 AM]

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by RookieDude
...not to speak for BBR...but, I think he was saying his partner missed the call by no-calling it.

Exactly. TR knows this stuff cold.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Exactly. TR knows this stuff cold.

What stuff?