Backcourt violation or not?

[KGB]

On a TI from the division line, A1 releases the ball. The ball is deflected by B1 (who is pressuring the TI). The ball gets delected further into the air.

A2, jumps from his frontcourt, catches the ball in the air while over the division line and then lands in the backcourt.

Is this a violation?

Clearly prior to this season, it was not a violation.

However, this year, the TI ends when the ball is legally touched inbounds which seems to occur when B1 deflected the inbounds pass. Therefore, the TI "exception" to the backcourt violation would no longer apply.

All other criteria for a backcourt violation seem to be present.

What am I missing???????????

[IREFU2]

Since there is no team control on a throw in, then the answer is no. This is a legal play- 9-9-1

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by KGB

On a TI from the division line, A1 releases the ball. The ball is deflected by B1 (who is pressuring the TI). The ball gets delected further into the air.

A2, jumps from his frontcourt, catches the ball in the air while over the division line and then lands in the backcourt.

Is this a violation?

Clearly prior to this season, it was not a violation.

However, this year, the TI ends when the ball is legally touched inbounds which seems to occur when B1 deflected the inbounds pass. Therefore, the TI "exception" to the backcourt violation would no longer apply.

All other criteria for a backcourt violation seem to be present.

What am I missing???????????

The only think missing is that is was NOT clear prior to this season that this was not a violation.

It is clear that it's a violation now. See interp 6

[KGB]

Originally Posted by IREFU2

Since there is no team control on a throw in, then the answer is no. This is a legal play- 9-9-1

The throw in is over when B1 deflected the ball.

[KGB]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The only think missing is that is was NOT clear prior to this season that this was not a violation.

It is clear that it's a violation now. See interp 6

Bob,

Clarify "See interp 6".

I work HS only.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by KGB

Bob,

Clarify "See interp 6".

I work HS only.

NFHS 2007-2008 Basetball Rules Interpretations, Situation 6.

You can get them on the NFHS website.

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by KGB

The throw in is over when B1 deflected the ball.

Hey go to your case book and look at page 72 (9.9.1 Situation D) I was a little hasty in my answer. They need to word this a little bit better and determine what a legal touch is. I guess a deflection is a legal touch....

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by IREFU2

Hey go to your case book and look at page 72 (9.9.1 Situation D) I was a little hasty in my answer. They need to word this a little bit better and determine what a legal touch is. I guess a deflection is a legal touch....

illegal touch = kick

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

illegal touch = kick

Or batting with a fist?

[bannind]

It is not a violation as described in the first post. Yes a deflection or tap ends the throwin, but it does not establish front/backcourt possession.

I believe the situation that will cause the most problems, because of the clarification of when a throwin ends, is with momentum causing a player who catches a ball with one foot in the front court and momentum carries them into the back court. While legal if during a throwin, if the ball has been deflected (in a manner that is considered a legal touch) and A1 gains control of the ball with one foot in the front court and momentum takes them into the back court - at that point there is a violation. That is because the consideration to allow a players momentum to legally take them into the back court only exists during a throwin. If the ball has been legally touched the throwin is over and that consideration no longer exists.

But in reference to the original posters question - there would be no violation.

but that is just my reading on the rules.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by bannind

But in reference to the original posters question - there would be no violation.

When the player catches the ball while airborne, he establishes player control, which also establishes team control. Also, since the player left the frontcourt, he gives the ball frontcourt status when he establishes player control. Then he lands in the backcourt. This is a violation.

The only time this is not a violation is during a throw-in, as it is an allowed exception to the rule. Since B tipped the ball, ending the throw-in, the exception no longer applies.

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

When the player catches the ball while airborne, he establishes player control, which also establishes team control. Also, since the player left the frontcourt, he gives the ball frontcourt status when he establishes player control. Then he lands in the backcourt. This is a violation.

The only time this is not a violation is during a throw-in, as it is an allowed exception to the rule. Since B tipped the ball, ending the throw-in, the exception no longer applies.

Very well put, jdw.

[JugglingReferee]

"You are where you were until you get where you're going" applies to A2 in this case. Along with B's touch ending the TI: violation.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bannind

It is not a violation as described in the first post. Yes a deflection or tap ends the throwin, but it does not establish front/backcourt possession.

I believe the situation that will cause the most problems, because of the clarification of when a throwin ends, is with momentum causing a player who catches a ball with one foot in the front court and momentum carries them into the back court. While legal if during a throwin, if the ball has been deflected (in a manner that is considered a legal touch) and A1 gains control of the ball with one foot in the front court and momentum takes them into the back court - at that point there is a violation. That is because the consideration to allow a players momentum to legally take them into the back court only exists during a throwin. If the ball has been legally touched the throwin is over and that consideration no longer exists.

But in reference to the original posters question - there would be no violation.

but that is just my reading on the rules.

Don't take this the wrong way but.....do you even bother to read what everybody else is posting?

Bob Jenkins has already said above that the the NFHS posted the correct ruling on their web site. The FED ruling is that it IS a violation. How can you then say that it's your reading of the rules when you obviously didn't bother to read the rules.

http:..http://www.nfhs.org/web/2007/10/2007...s_interpr.aspx
See Situation #6. Note that it's the exact play described in the original post of this thread.

Also note that is probably the third or fourth thread about the exact same play. The ruling ain't gonna change, folks.

[bannind]

I do stand corrected - I was not getting any response from the NFHS.org website and I had left the fed books at the office, thus I could not verify for myself.

I don't take it the wrong way - and have a great Thanksgiving Jurassic (and everyone else).