Backcourt violation

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Snaqwells

The "exception" absolutely applies to a second player, as long as the first one didn't actually have control. The exception doesn’t apply to a 2nd player after the first one gains control. Two different issues.

Agreed. The "exception" applies until team control is gained.

I believe the NF has included the defensive situation in the same article as the jump ball/throw-in situation, so as to not have to add a 4th article under 9-9. That's why it's worded, "the team not in control." Realize that if every single situation that could possibly occur was listed in the rule book in every way that it could occur, the book would be bigger thant the NYC phone book.

To me, it's clear the 9-9-3 does not cover the rebounder. If the NF wants to add it, great. But until then, I've got a violation.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
To me, it's clear the 9-9-3 does not cover the rebounder. If the NF wants to add it, great. But until then, I've got a violation.

So do you also have violations in the two situations posted by Snaqwells, since 9-3-3 only covers DURING the jumpball and throw-in?

I think that you either have to follow the rule to the letter and call all three of these backcourt violations or take the parentheses as just examples and allow all three plays as legal.

Mixing and matching doesn't cut it.

[Adam]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Agreed. The "exception" applies until team control is gained.

I believe the NF has included the defensive situation in the same article as the jump ball/throw-in situation, so as to not have to add a 4th article under 9-9. That's why it's worded, "the team not in control." Realize that if every single situation that could possibly occur was listed in the rule book in every way that it could occur, the book would be bigger thant the NYC phone book.

To me, it's clear the 9-9-3 does not cover the rebounder. If the NF wants to add it, great. But until then, I've got a violation.

The only way the exception continues until team control is gained is if you ignore the parenthetical statement in the rule; or view it as I do, as a list of examples that is not all-inclusive. Otherwise, the exception stops when the throw-in ends.

That said, I guess we'll have to just disagree. On a situation which will maybe happen to each of us a half dozen times over a career, it would take a group of refs to argue about something like this.

Now, to end my part of this correctly,

I fart in your general direction.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Snaqwells

The "exception" absolutely applies to a second player, as long as the first one didn't actually have control. The exception doesn’t apply to a 2nd player after the first one gains control. Two different issues.

"The "exception" absolutely applies to a second player, as long as the first one didn't actually have control." Do you have the rules reference for this. I can't find it . . .

If A1 inbounds the ball to A2, who leaps in the air in Team A's frontcourt and taps the ball towards A3, who also leaps in the air in the frontcourt, catches the ball, then lands with a foot in the frontcourt, followed, in a normal landing, by the other foot in the backcourt, is A3 exempt from the backcourt rule? Or does a 'tap' with purpose constitute control?

[BktBallRef]

Fellas, think about this. When does the throw-in end? It ends when the ball is touched inbounds. So you're telling me that if a player jumps from his BC, muffs the ball (thereby ending the throw-in) and then catches it before landing in the BC, you have a violation? That's what you're saying?

Sorry but that's wrong. And it's no different than one player touching it and another then catching it and landing BC.

The exceptions never covered a rebounder.

The rule that was created when the exceptions were eliminated doesn't cover a rebounder.

No sense in arguing it any further. Believe what you will.

[psycho_ref]

assignmentmaker, a tap with purpose is control established. I believe we are talking about a non-controlled tap.

Furthermore, regarding the "The "exception" absolutely applies to a second player, as long as the first one didn't actually have control." Refer to 9-9-1 "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 to the backcourt". Key words capitalized.

A1 inboudning the ball throws it to A2 who taps it unctonrollably, (throw-in ends by definition), A3 jumps from the frontcourt and catches the ball in mid-air and lands in the backcourt. By rule A3 is legal according to 9-9-1 because there was no control in the frontcourt, but is illegal according to 9-9-3 because the throw-in has ended when the ball was first tapped by A2.

Guys and gals I think we will have to agree that the bracketed situations are just examples and that the key words are "team not in control". Or else this rule contradicts itself. This is a great discussion but what do we do now???

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

I think that you either have to follow the rule to the letter and call all three of these backcourt violations or take the parentheses as just examples and allow all three plays as legal.

Mixing and matching doesn't cut it.

Um, we are following the rule to the letter, as per the way we read it. What we aren't following is your very own personal interpretation of that rule, Nevada.

Big, big difference.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Um, we are following the rule to the letter, as per the way we read it. What we aren't following is your very own personal interpretation of that rule, Nevada.

Big, big difference.

You aren't following the rule to the letter if you are going to allow this action when it is not DURING a jumpball.

Once the jumpball ends, with A2 touching the ball, how do you still consider A3 to be covered by 9-3-3?

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by psycho_ref
assignmentmaker, a tap with purpose is control established. I believe we are talking about a non-controlled tap.

Furthermore, regarding the "The "exception" absolutely applies to a second player, as long as the first one didn't actually have control." Refer to 9-9-1 "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 to the backcourt". Key words capitalized.

A1 inboudning the ball throws it to A2 who taps it unctonrollably, (throw-in ends by definition), A3 jumps from the frontcourt and catches the ball in mid-air and lands in the backcourt. By rule A3 is legal according to 9-9-1 because there was no control in the frontcourt, but is illegal according to 9-9-3 because the throw-in has ended when the ball was first tapped by A2.
...

You're logic is faulty. You are failing to notice that what is in blue above constitutes team control in the frontcourt because the player jumped from there. What is in red is therefore false.

It's not the tap that makes control; it's the catch!

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

1. We know that the 'exception' does not transfer to a second player during a throw-in. By analogy, would you expect it to transfer to a second player in the jump ball situation?

Well, the exception doesn't transfer to the 2nd player when the first player catches the ball....i.e. A1 can't catch and pass to A2 (in the backcourt). The case play that addresses that clearly states that the first player established control and has the exception even though they have control. In the case, there is no control prior to the play in question.

[Camron Rust]

Lists in parenthses are usually to be taken as examples of the situation being described, not exhaustive lists. Taken as examples, it would mean that it would apply to the rebounding case. The list in parenthesis are the common examples of situations the committee clearly thought deserved and exception. I really double that the rebounding case occurs more than once per state per year...if that. As such, it's not frequent enough to make the radar of rules editors.

Personally, I see that the rule is intending to allow a team to seek control of the ball near midcourt without being concerned about where they land.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
Lists in parenthses are usually to be taken as examples of the situation being described, not exhaustive lists. Taken as examples, it would mean that it would apply to the rebounding case. The list in parenthesis are the common examples of situations the committee clearly thought deserved and exception. I really double that the rebounding case occurs more than once per state per year...if that. As such, it's not frequent enough to make the radar of rules editors.

Personally, I see that the rule is intending to allow a team to seek control of the ball near midcourt without being concerned about where they land.

"Lists in parenthses are usually to be taken as examples . . . "

Usually, yes. The history of this rule suggests not in this case. Stare decisis. But what you say makes linguistic and basketball sense - so there shouldn't be an atomic situation if you call it that way.

[Edited by assignmentmaker on Mar 4th, 2006 at 10:41 AM]