Possesion

[cmathews]

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.....

[IREFU2]

Originally posted by cmathews
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.

[cmathews]

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

[IREFU2]

Originally posted by cmathews
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

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

[cmathews]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by cmathews
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.

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

[IREFU2]

Originally posted by cmathews
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.

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.)

[cmathews]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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

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?

[IREFU2]

Originally posted by cmathews

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?

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

[cmathews]

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...

[IREFU2]

Originally posted by cmathews
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...

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by cmathews
[/B]

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.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by IREFU2
In the first instance, there is no backcourt because there is no team control on a throw in.

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.

[IREFU2]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

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.

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?

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by IREFU2
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?

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