At what point does a player who leaves the floor and "catches" the ball gain possesion? I will add more details to the thread as warranted.....

Once he/she secures the ball, he/she has possesion.

ok I agree so far
 

Now a situation. Team A shoots the ball (loses team possesion), the ball rebounds and is headed out of bounds. There are 3 seconds left on the clock in a tie game, A1 jumps from in bounds, grabs the ball calls time out then lands out of bounds. In order to grant a TO we have to have player possesion. So as I see it, we grant this time out?? There is more to come....stay tuned LOL :D

Re: ok I agree so far
 

Yep, if A1 has possesion of the ball, time out can be granted before A1 lands out of bounds.

ok now for the real situation
 

A1 is inbounding the ball near midcourt. The ball is thrown "to " A2. A2 jumps from the front court, catches the ball and lands in the backcourt. I say we have a backcourt violation. The following reasons lead me to my conclusion. First in order to be a backcourt violation, A has to have possesion in the front court, an a player being the last to touch it in the front court before it goes to backcourt and be the first to touch it in the backcourt.

A2 establishes player control upon catching the ball. A2 is in the front court because he is where he was until he gets where he is going. A has team control in the front court due to A2's possesion. A2 is obviously the last to touch the ball in the front court. A2 now lands in backcourt, the ball in hand. The ball is now in the backcourt where A2 is obviously the first to touch it. In my little world (I admit it is tiny), this is a backcourt violation?? Comments?? The reason for the thread is a discussion at our meeting last night.

Re: ok now for the real situation
 

I think that someone at your meeting shoulda read NFHS rule 9-9-3. You're wrong as per that rule.

Re: ok now for the real situation
 

In the first instance, there is no backcourt because there is no team control on a throw in. Therefore, A1 can throw the ball in and A2 can catch it in the air and land in the back court. Once A2 come back into the front court, team a has established front court status and if they go back into the backcourt its a violation unless the ball was tip by team B. The key is to know when there is team control -
THROW-IN AWARDED TO OPPONENT FOR ALL TEAM-CONTROL FOULS
7-5-5, 4-19-7): A new definition for a team-control foul has been established, and the penalty has been changed to a throw-in in all cases. The ball will be awarded to the offended team at a spot nearest to where the foul occurred. Bonus free throws will no longer be awarded. The change makes enforcement of the rule easier for officials. Under the previous rule it was sometimes difficult to determine whether: (a) a player in control had released the ball on a pass or interrupted dribble before the player charges; and (b) a player had received a pass before the player charges. The change makes the penalty consistent for a player-control foul and a team-control foul. In addition, the change reduces delays in the game. The rule only applies when a foul occurs by the team in control.

(By rule, there is no team control during a throw-in, jump ball or when the ball is in flight during a try or tap for goal.)

Re: Re: ok now for the real situation
 

JR thanks, I don't know how come we missed that one...but it does draw into question the timeout situation. If there is no team control in the backcourt situation, which I agree with. Shouldn't the same be true for the player jumping out of bounds with the ball?? Assuming he/she didn't have possesion while their feet were on the floor?

Re: Re: Re: ok now for the real situation
 

Team/player control is established once the player has possesion of the ball, either in the air or on the floor.

that is my point
 

IREFU2,
That is my point. The rules seem to be a little inconsistent. In one situation, team control is established when the player gains control of the ball in the air (the time out situation), in the other situation team control isn't gained when the player gains possesion in the air (the backcourt situation). At this point I certainly am not arguing the validity of the calls, just that the rules contradict themselves...

Re: that is my point
 

It does seem kind of funky, but if you think about it, no matter where the player takes off from, his/her status is where the player left from not where they land. In the instance of team/player control, there are time when you have one and not the other, both or neither one. As long as you know the status of the ball in retrospect to the team and/or players, you will be fine.

Re: Re: Re: ok now for the real situation
 

If there is no team control in the backcourt situation, which I agree with. Shouldn't the same be true for the player jumping out of bounds with the ball?? Assuming he/she didn't have possesion while their feet were on the floor? [/B][/QUOTE]There is team control in that throw-in situation. Player, and thus team control, was established when A2 caught the throw-in in mid-air. That's rule 4-12-1&2. There was also player and team control established, as per that same rule, by the player catching the ball in mid-air while going OOB and then requesting a TO. In your first scenario, if the player in mid-air while catching the throw-in requested a time-out, it should be granted- exactly the same way as you would grant the request for the player going OOB. In both cases, the player had player control of a live ball inbounds with the clock running- so the TO request should be granted.

R9-9-3 is basically some exceptions to the normal backcourt violation rule that have been put in the book to cover very specific situations only- throw-ins, jump-ball and a defensive steal.

Re: Re: ok now for the real situation
 

I'm checking in late on this one, but the above statement is not correct. There is no team control on a throw-in, but that's NOT why the scenario is not a backcourt violation.

As JR has pointed out, the ONLY reason this is not a backcourt violation is that there is a specific exception to the rule. Without the exception, there is team control and front court status when the airborne player catches the ball as well as backcourt status when he lands. Normally, this is a backcourt violation. However, we have the exception in this particular case.

Re: Re: Re: ok now for the real situation
 

Can you tell me an instance when there is a throw-in in the FC, where there could be a BC violation with the exception of team control or player control?

Re: Re: Re: Re: ok now for the real situation
 

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're asking for. Can you re-word the question?

I was trying to figure out why my statement wasnt correct.

Can you tell me an instance when there is a throw-in in the FC, where there could be a BC violation with the exception of team control or player control? [/B][/QUOTE]There aren't any instances. You cannot have a backcourt violation on a throw-in if there never was team control in the front court. And remember that you can't have team control without first establishing player control.

You would have a backcourt violation though if a player caught the ball with one foot <b>on</b> the floor in the frontcourt and then stepped into the backcourt with the other foot. In that case, the player established player and team control in the front court with that one foot on the floor in the front court.

Is that what you were looking for? Something like that?

Your statement "there is no TC on a throw-in" is correct.

But, in the play presented, there was PC, and thus TC, when A1 caught the ball. A1 needn't be "on the ground" to establish PC.

If we look at the four rules:

1) A has TC -- yes, when A1 catches the ball (note -- I didn't go back to see which specific number was the inbounder and which specific number caught the ball)

2) Ball in FC -- yes, since A1 left the court from the FC

3) A last to touch -- yes

4) A first to touch -- yes

So, as Chuck said, we would have a violation, except for the three exceptions in the rule -- throw-in, defense, jump ball.

There are several exceptions to the "Backcourt Violation".
Look in Case Book at 9.9.1.B.
It describes a jump ball sitch, but the same procedure exists on a throw-in. The key is that the player is AIRBORN when they receive the ball and establish Team Control.
9.9.1.A describes the player having "One Foot" in A's frontcourt when Team Control is established.
IMO the best way to think of it is, where is the player & ball when the ball is PUT IN PLAY. We all know it is a LIVE BALL when at the disposal of the thrower.

Re: Re: Re: Re: ok now for the real situation
 

I hope you don't mind me jumping in here, JR is well aware of the rules and various situations. Being that the throw-in ends when the ball is touched by a player, there isn't much happening "during" the throw-in. However immediately afterward BC violations might occur. (See BasketBallRef's backcourt quiz for examples.) The BC exemption would end if A1 (who received the throw-in in the air after jumping while in the FC)passed the ball to a teammate in the BC, lo, a BC violation

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ok now for the real situation
 

Ahhh, thats what I was looking for! Thanks.

Starting with 2003-2004 rule book, the rule was rewritten to make the "exception" cases part of the rule. Previously, the specific instances of 1. during a throw-in; 2. during a jump ball; and, 3. when the defense secures possession were all part of EXCEPTION 1 to rule 9-9-2. Just a little history.

Re: Re: Re: Re: ok now for the real situation
 

A1 throws to A2 who jumped from the FC, catches the ball and while still in the air, passes it to A3 who is standing in the BC.

OK, How about this.

A1 throws in to A2. A2 jumps from the frontcourt, catches the pass in the air. While still in the air, B1 dislodges the ball, which then begins bouncing in the frontcourt toward the backcourt. A2 attempts to re-secure control of the ball, but instead knocks the ball into the backcourt, where he then recovers it.

Violation?

Still backcourt violation.

The NFHS Case Book doesn't imply that it is backcourt.

9.9.1.b

Please explain why you think so.

For clarity, I want to emphasize the final sentences of 9-9-3, the 'exception' statute: "The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt."

I believe on of BktBallRef's Backcourt Quiz questions brings out the fact that, were a player to land on one foot in the frontcourt and stay on that foot while trying to make a play, the exception would terminate, the player would be in the frontcourt, and could no longer bring a foot down in the backcourt, nor jump off of one onto two in the backcourt.

yeah, but that is talking about a jump ball.

A2 secures team control and establishes the ball location as frontcourt. B1's dislodgement maintains the ball's location in frontcourt without ending A's team control. If A2 is in frontcourt and knocks it to backcourt then retrieves it, it's a violation as he becomes both last to touch and first to touch. If he's in backcourt when he touches it, it's a violation immediately. You might suggest that B1 was the last to touch it before it went to backcourt, but that would not be correct. A2 became simultaneously the last to touch it before it went to backcourt, and the first to touch it once it did.

Because all four of the criteria are met, and none of the "exceptions" apply.