Team A shoots the ball, rebound is tipped by Team A (or Team B) but no control by either team, A1 gains control of the ball while in air (both feet off ground), one foot lands in front court, second foot lands in backcourt. A1's foot landed in the frontcourt before A1's other foot landed in the backcourt. A1 is now straddling the halfcourt line.

Legal? Illegal?

When A1 gained control of the ball, s/he was in the front court, so the ball gained front court location at that point and Team A gained control. It doesn't then matter that A1 lands with a foot in the frontcourt first. Either way, foot down or direct flight to the backcourt, it's a backcourt violation. There is no 'exception' for this case.

Legal.

A1 caught it with neither foot on the floor at a time when A didn't have team control. A1 had a normal landing with one foot in the frontcourt and one in the backcourt. Not sure what the case number is but this is explicited listed as not a backcourt violation.

Don't the 'exceptions' only apply to a STEAL and an INBOUNDS pass?

You may be right. However, it doesn't refer to it as a steal. It refers to it with regards to a defensive player. The question is whether the team that doesn't have control is on defense...or is anyone on defense? It would seem to have the intent of applying to situations where the team is gaining control.

The origin of the exception was, in part anyway, to reward a good defensive play - thus a 'steal'. 9-9-3 says, in effect, the 'exception' for a normal landing from the front court into the backcourt applies to "defensive player or during a jump ball or throw-in."

Disagree completely, Camron. Team control was established in A's front court when A1 established team control with one foot in the front court and the other foot in the air. It's a backcourt violation if A1 then steps into the backcourt with the ball. The exception applies only to a defensive player stealing a pass, or any player during a jump ball or throw-in. A1 was an offensive player as soon as he established player control of the ball with one foot in the frontcourt and one foot in the air.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Mar 1st, 2006 at 08:01 PM]

My understanding (without having unpacked my rule books yet) is that the "exception" (now written into the rule) is that a player whose team is not in control of the ball may jump from anywhere, secure the ball, and make a normal landing.
When the legal play expanded to include the inbounds pass, I assume it also includes this play.

Violation
 

I agree with Jurassic.

What is a normal landing.
 

The violation occurs when A1 who is established in the frontcourt with the ball with one foot, steps into the backcourt with the other foot. Stand on one foot, catch the ball, you are now in the front court (doesnt matter where the ball came from or where you jumped from). Now step into the backcourt with the other foot, Backcourt Violation.

Had it been a 2 foot jump stop with both feet hitting the ground at the same time with one in the back court and one in the front court then its legal (and A1 is legally in the back court and the 10 second count begins). Front court first then back court illegal.

[Edited by psycho_ref on Mar 1st, 2006 at 07:55 PM]

The rule states that with a normal landing, one foot may come down first and it doesn't matter if it's front court or backcourt. Now, if the kid lands on one foot, holds the other in the air for a few seconds, and then places the 2nd foot into the BC, you can call the violation.

Normal landing reference.
 

Can you give me the rule number in the book?

Thanks.

Okay, I found the 2004-2005 rule book in my garage. I don't think the NFHS made any changes to the BC rule this year.
I take the parenthetical statement to be a couple of examples of the phrase "from the team not in control" which, in my estimation, also includes all rebounders from the time a shot is attempted until the rebound is secured.

Rule 9-9
A player shall not...
Art 1. Be the first to touch....
Art 2. While in team control....
Furthermore...
Art 3. A player from the team not in control (defensive player or during a jump ball or throwin) may legally jump from his/her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt.

I respectfully disagree with Snaq and Camron. Guys, it's right there in black and white. There's no disptuing it.

9-9-3
A player from the team not in control (defensive player or during a jump ball or throwin) may legally jump from his/her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt.

There is no team control, so there is no defensive player.
There is no throw-in.
There is no jump ball.

The rule does not say that "a rebounder when neither team has team control," as Snaq suggests. Now, it is similiar to the conditions cited in the rule and it maybe something the NFHS should consider. But as the rule is presently written, this is not legal. Violation.

Thanks.
 

Thanks Snaqwells. I guess it could be legal or illegal depending on the landing. Whether the step to the bc was a delayed step into the back court or part of a normal landing.

Separately, I guess they should add 'rebound off a missed shot' as one of the exceptions, along with 'jump ball, throw-in, and defensive play'. Which would make sense since there is no team control after a missed shot.

Thanks Snaq. Will read more on it.

Any other thoughts anyone?

WOW.
 

That was quick. Another good point.

What do we do now???

I think maybe the brackets suggest that they are examples and not necessarily every situation listed where there is no team control. Because we know that there is no team control after a shot.

Wow, maybe "e.g." within those brackets would solve our problem.

OK. everyone take out your pen and put "e.g." within the brackets. I'm doing it right now. It will fit don't worry. LOL.

That's exactly the way I read it too.

I see your point, guys. To me, it's unfortunate that they had to provide examples and leave one out. The rule states "a player from the team not in control may legally...." Parenthetical comments can be removed without changing the meaning of a sentence. In this case, you remove the parenthetical and it's clear that the play is legal.

I wish the Fed would either add the other example (not sure off hand if there are other situations where no team would have control, but I don't think so) or drop the parenthesis altogether.

The specified items in 9-9-3 developed as 'exceptions' - not as a way to broadly address situations with 'no control'.

In particular, the exception for the 'defensive' player was made, I believe, to reward a mid-air steal near the midcourt line of a ball <i>in control</i> of the other team.

The three exceptions
 

I think we should look at these as examples of situations where there is no team control and not the ONLY situations where there is no team control. Rule states "A player from the team not in control..." and gives the 3 examples/exceptions. Maybe it should also say "A player from 'A' team not in control". Saying "THE", suggests that there is a team in control, which contradicts the examples of 'jump ball, and throw-in'.

Does that make sense. The rule in itself, according to the english language contradicts itself.

I think they should just rewrite the whole thing to read:

"A player from A team not in control (E.G. defensive player or during a jump ball or throwin OR AFTER A MISSED SHOT)..."

Does anyone know how to make that change happen???LOL.

Am I making any sense here???

Re: The three exceptions
 

Yes, the language is poor, but not positively obtuse. We know from the evolution of the rule (from exceptions to incorporation within the rule) what's meant.

Think of it this way: "A player from the team not in control, that is, a defensive player, or [a player] during a jump ball or throw-in, may legally jump from his/her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt."

Would it be good for the game if the exceptions were expanded to include any loose ball backcourt situation where control is obtained in the air? There's the matter of judging at high speed whether or not a player is making 'normal landing' or trying to perch on one foot, thus giving up the exception. This would be more of that . . . not that that happens that often . . .

Jeff is correct with regard to the evolution of the rule. Previously, the exceptions were very clear. There were exceptions for a throw-in, a jump ball, and a steal by an airborne defender. There has never been an exception for a rebounder.

When the exceptions were rewritten as as 9-9-3, the rules did not change. They simply moved from exception to rule, a semantical change, not a philosophical one.

psycho, the fact that you're discussing that the NFHS should change the rule to include a rebounder after a missed shot makies it clear what the rule presetnly is. If the rule covered rebounders, it wouldn't need to be changed, now would it? :)

Oddly enough I discussed this very play with a fellow official for the first time earlier this season. I just had never thought of the long rebound with an airborne player situation since the wording of the rule was changed.

The funny part is that I had this discussion with a first year official who had just worked the first varsity games of his life. Whe were going over TH's backcourt quiz on the car ride home and he inquired about the rebounding play.

I told him then that I had learned something from him. See you can learn from everyone! :)

Now my opinion is that the rewording of the rule did, in fact, change the rule. I believe that this play should NOT be a violation. The three items listed in parentheses should not be taken as all inclusive. Here's the proof:

Jumpball to start the game. The jumpers are A1 and B1. A1 taps the ball. Then A2 taps the ball, but he is not able to gain control. Now A3 jumps from his frontcourt, catches the ball with both feet off the floor, and subsequently lands with both feet in the backcourt. Violation or not?

Recall the exact wording of the rule says, "<font color = blue>during</font> a jump ball" and when does the jump ball end?

4-28-3 "The jump ball begins when the ball leaves the referee's hand(s) and ends when the touched ball contacts a nonjumper, the floor, a basket or backboard."

The casebook play doesn't cover the scenario above. Only the play in which the first nonjumper who touches the ball and subsequently lands in the backcourt is given in 9.9.1 SITUATION B. That first nonjumper gets an exception. However, what about the second nonjumper to touch the ball? Certainly, his action isn't during the jumpball!

It is my opinion that both of these are oversights by the committee of rules writers and that neither one should be a backcourt violation.

Of course, that is just my little ole opinion.

It is my opinion that both of these are oversights by the committee of rules writers and that neither one should be a backcourt violation.

Of course, that is just my little ole opinion.
[/B][/QUOTE]It is my opinion that you think too much. :D

It is also my opinion that your opinion is wrong.

LMOA!!!!!!!! :)

LMOA? :confused:

Laughing My Orifice Away?

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?

2. Regarding the long-rebound, I would be comfortable to see it included, for symmetry. I can imagine making the call if a rebound came straight out to midcourt, but in the oddball case in which the ball is tapped, tapped, tapped in the air all the way out to midcourt, where there would be a lot of decision making (not a foul, not a foul, not a foul) along the way, it might be hard to cue up the exception at the last instant . . .

Good point, however...
 

BktBallRef, good point, however the rule contradicts itself for 2 reasons.

1. By saying "A player from the team not in control...", suggests that there is only one team that is not in control, which we know is not true because during a jump and throw-in neither team is in control. (not necessarily as important as #2).

2. Leaving the bracketed situations, "A player from the team not in control (defensive player or during a jump ball or throwin)", suggests that these are the ONLY situations where there is no team control. Which is plain wrong. Either the bracketed situations should be removed, making the rule apply to all situations where there is no team control, or all situations should be listed, or it should be specified that these are examples of no team control and not the only situations.

You are right BktBallRef, "If the rule covered rebounders, it wouldn't need to be changed...", because all situations where there is no team control, would be listed (to the best of my knowledge). Although now Nevadaref brought up a good point about "during a jumpball", which I guess would also apply to a throw-in, which means if we specify the exceptions we would have to say "during or after a jump ball, until control is established", (same for throw-in), which would just be too long and redundant. I think the examples/exceptions should be taken out and we would refer to the Team Control definition, to know WHEN a team has control.

Assignmentmaker, why doesn't the 'exception' transfer to a second player during a throw-in?
Example: A1 is making a throw-in in A's front court, the throw-in is tipped uncontrollably by A2, and again by A3, and then A4 jumps from A's front court, catches the ball in midair, and lands in A's backcourt. Did you mean that this is a violation?

[Edited by psycho_ref on Mar 2nd, 2006 at 02:06 PM]

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.

Two situations that show the OP is not a violation. Inspired by Nevada.

1. Throw-in from near division line. A1 throws the ball in, and it is tipped by B1 (or A3). A2 jumps from his front court and grabs the ball before landing in the back court. The throw-in is over once B1 tips the ball, so if we relegate the "exception" to the examples given in parentheses, the violation should be called. If we go by the wording of the rule without the parentheses, it's legal.

2. The jump ball situation mentioned previously, whether tipped by A2 or B1, caught by airborne A1 who leapt from his front court and landed in his back court. Same results as #1 above.

Neither of these situations is included in the parenthetical examples of "team not in control," because the throw-in and jump ball, respectively, are over once the ball is touched by the first non-thrower or non-jumper.

Are we calling a violation on #1 and #2? It seems to me we have to if we're going to call it on the OP.

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.

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.

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. :D

Now, to end my part of this correctly,

I fart in your general direction.

"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?

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.

A tap with purpose is controlled.
 

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???

Um, we are following the rule to the letter, as per the way we read it. What we <b>aren't</b> following is <b>your</b> 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?

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!

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.

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]