backcourt

[lukealex]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

This is one area where I think FIBA actually has a better rule. As I understand it from what has been posted here before, when the ball touches in the backcourt after last being touched in the frontcourt by an offensive player, it is a backcourt violation. There is no need for an offensive player to be the first to touch it.

It is treated almost the same as if the division line were a sideline. When you think of it like this, the call is obvious.

This isn't quite right, B1 can pick up the ball if it goes into the backcourt being last touched by team A without violation.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

This is one area where I think FIBA actually has a better rule. As I understand it from what has been posted here before, when the ball touches in the backcourt after last being touched in the frontcourt by an offensive player, it is a backcourt violation. There is no need for an offensive player to be the first to touch it.

It is treated almost the same as if the division line were a sideline. When you think of it like this, the call is obvious.

The only thing I don't like about the FIBA rule is it takes away the opportunity for the defense to take the ball right away and score, or at least keep the ball, and keep the clock running without having another OOB play. The FIBA rule makes calling the violation easier, but the Fed. rule keeps the ball in play longer.

[kycat1]

Gentlemen,
When the ball strikes the division line or the player strikes the division line that ball and / or player now has backcourt position based on the rules.
I never said anything about a ball that has backcourt position and being touched by a player in front court as being legal. I said a ball that has front court position, being touched or caught by a player with frontcourt position is a legal play in any rule book!

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by kycat1

Gentlemen,
When the ball strikes the division line or the player strikes the division line that ball and / or player now has backcourt position based on the rules.
I never said anything about a ball that has backcourt position and being touched by a player in front court as being legal. I said a ball that has front court position, being touched or caught by a player with frontcourt position is a legal play in any rule book!

And, that's where you would be wrong. In NFHS, it doesn't matter if the ball makes it back to the front court before it's touched. It only matters if the points are followed - offense was the last to touch in the front court, and the offense is the first to touch it after it has been in the back court.

Jimgolf mentioned the FIBA rule, where it becomes a violation the instant the ball gains back court status. Think of the Fed. rule almost like a "delayed" violation. If the defense touches it first, play on. If the offense touches it, violation.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by kycat1

Gentlemen,
1) When the ball strikes the division line or the player strikes the division line that ball and / or player now has backcourt position based on the rules.

2) I never said anything about a ball that has backcourt position and being touched by a player in front court as being legal. I said a ball that has front court position, being touched or caught by a player with frontcourt position is a legal play in any rule book!

1) That's completely irrelevant. We're talking about ball striking a player who is completely in the front court after the ball has been in the back court.

2) And you're still completely wrong because you don't have any comprehension of how the rule works. The ball having front court position is also completely irrelevant after the ball enters the back court. It doesn't matter at all where the ball is subsequently touched. All that matters, by rule, is who is the first to touch the ball after it went into the back court.

That's a pretty basic rule there that you're completely screwing up, cat. It might be a good idea on your part to find a rule interpreter somewhere and run it by them. You obviously don't believe any of us.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by kycat1

Gentlemen,
When the ball strikes the division line or the player strikes the division line that ball and / or player now has backcourt position based on the rules.
I never said anything about a ball that has backcourt position and being touched by a player in front court as being legal. I said a ball that has front court position, being touched or caught by a player with frontcourt position is a legal play in any rule book!

Okay, I'll gladly change the play for you.

I'm standing in the FC, holding the ball. I bounce pass to you, the ball hits the division line, hits the floor in the FC, you catch the ball while completely standing in the FC. Is this a BC violation? Yes, it is.

Look at the rule. There's no requirement that the ball be touched while in the backcourt.

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.

#1 - You as A2 are the first to touch the ball
#2 - Our team has team control
#3 - I was standing in the FC when I passed it to you, so FC status has been attained.
#4 - I was the last player to touch it "before it went to the backcourt."

I can't make it any simplier than that. If you aren't willing to listen to others' ideas, you're wasting your time posting here, especially when everyone else here is telling you the same thing: that you're wrong.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Okay, I'll gladly change the play for you.

I'm standing in the FC, holding the ball. I bounce pass to you, the ball hits the division line, hits the floor in the FC, you catch the ball while completely standing in the FC. Is this a BC violation? Yes, it is.

Look at the rule. There's no requirement that the ball be touched while in the backcourt.

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.

#1 - You as A2 are the first to touch the ball
#2 - Our team has team control
#3 - I was standing in the FC when I passed it to you, so FC status has been attained.
#4 - I was the last player to touch it "before it went to the backcourt."

I can't make it any simplier than that. If you aren't willing to listen to others' ideas, you're wasting your time posting here, especially when everyone else here is telling you the same thing: that you're wrong.

Said another way...

The only legal way for a ball to go from A1 (in the froncourt) to A2 and touch the backcourt on the way (or A2 in the backcourt) is for a player from team B to contact the ball between the touches by A1 and A2.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I'm standing in the FC, holding the ball. I bounce pass to you, the ball hits the division line, hits the floor in the FC, you catch the ball while completely standing in the FC. Is this a BC violation? Yes, it is.

Here's my changed version:

A1 is standing in the frontcourt in the FT semi-circle. He has the ball. He turns around and throws the ball so that it strikes his opponents backboard in the backcourt and rebounds back towards him. The ball bounces on the floor in the frontcourt at the top of the key and A1 then catches it, having never moved from his original position. No other player touched the ball at anytime during this sequence.

Is this a BC violation KYcat?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by kycat1

I said a ball that has front court position, being touched or caught by a player with frontcourt position is a legal play in any rule book!

The following post demonstrates that your claim is clearly incorrect!

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

KY, this is from the 2006-07 NCAA Rulebook, take it for what it is worth. I already admitted I was wrong and needed to read, maybe you should do the same.

Rule 9.12-1
A.R. 190. A1 is in possession of the ball in the front court and throws a pass to A2 , who is located near the division line. A1’s pass is errant. A2 leaves the playing court with both feet in an attempt to prevent the ball from going into the back court. While in the air, A2 gains possession of the ball and throws it into the playing court, where it strikes the division line. The ball returns to the front court, where A3 recovers the ball before it is touched by an opponent. RULING: Team A has committed a back-court violation. The official shall blow the whistle for the back-court violation when the ball is touched by A3 in the front court after it touched the division line. Team A had control of the ball in its front court and the ball was last touched by Team A before going into the back court. Rule 9-12 says nothing about where the ball goes after it goes into the back court.

The bold sentence at the end is directly from the NCAA rulebook, I did not add that in.

Sorry, bud, but you're just going to have to admit that you are wrong on this one. It's okay though. You learned something new and that is how you improve.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Sorry, bud, but you're just going to have to admit that you are wrong on this one. It's okay though. You learned something new and that is how you improve.

I guess time will tell.

[truerookie]

All, I will not even attempt to speak for kycat. I can say from experience coming to this board kycat my feel like he is being sh!tted on. How do I know, I had the same approach once I started coming here. I wanted to show that I knew the rules. I may had known the rules, however, I did not know the spirit of the rules. Since, I have been coming to the forum I have grown tremendously as an official. However, the one thing I have learned is showing patience with those individuals who may have a hard time understanding the spirit of the rules. The least we can do is reply; post the appropriate rule and move on from there. I get frustrated we I see replies of an officials telling another official (maybe!) THEY DO NOT NEED TO BE AN OFFICIAL!! Due to the fact, they may not understand thing initially.

We are all brothers and sisters in arms. The forum is like a cyber official association. Let's not run new people away. We want them to come and learn and become better officials. This is coming from an individual who has been told by some on this very forum to apply for a job at Champ's Sports because I would not make it as an official.

I still here!!!

Be Patience with our new members.

Warmly

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by truerookie

However, the one thing I have learned is showing patience with those individuals who may have a hard time understanding the spirit of the rules. The least we can do is reply; post the appropriate rule and move on from there. I get frustrated we I see replies of an officials telling another official (maybe!) THEY DO NOT NEED TO BE AN OFFICIAL!! Due to the fact, they may not understand thing initially.

We are all brothers and sisters in arms. The forum is like a cyber official association. Let's not run new people away. We want them to come and learn and become better officials. This is coming from an individual who has been told by some on this very forum to apply for a job at Champ's Sports because I would not make it as an official.

People that come here usually want to learn. Kycat certainly hasn't shown that trait yet. Hoefully he will. A whole bunch of very sharp officials in this thread have taken the time and effort to try and teach him how the rule works. Not understanding something initially is completely different than refusing to understand something that is being told to him over and over....and kycat still simply refuses to believe anybody. Don't dump on the people trying to help because kycat- or anybody else- doesn't want to avail himself of the knowledge that is available here. The flip side is why should anyone here waste time on someone who refuses to learn.

This particular play isn't a case of a grey area in the rules that could be argued different ways. It's a case of having a definitive rule to apply.

None of us want to be assigned to a game after an official screws up a call completely because he didn't know a basic rule and he refused also to try and learn that basic rule.

Jmo too.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

People that come here usually want to learn. Kycat certainly hasn't shown that trait yet. Hoefully he will. A whole bunch of very sharp officials in this thread have taken the time and effort to try and teach him how the rule works. Not understanding something initially is completely different than refusing to understand something that is being told to him over and over....and kycat still simply refuses to believe anybody. Don't dump on the people trying to help because kycat- or anybody else- doesn't want to avail himself of the knowledge that is available here. The flip side is why should anyone here waste time on someone who refuses to learn.

This particular play isn't a case of a grey area in the rules that could be argued different ways. It's a case of having a definitive rule to apply.

None of us want to be assigned to a game after an official screws up a call completely because he didn't know a basic rule and he refused also to try and learn that basic rule.

Jmo too.

I am not dumping on anyone. I was just giving my opinion.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by truerookie

I am not dumping on anyone. I was just giving my opinion.

Me too.....

It is kinda frustrating, Rook, when several people take the time to write out a rule and fully explain it, and someone just refuses to believe everybody.

When it's you against the world in officiating, bet on the world.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Me too.....

It is kinda frustrating, Rook, when several people take the time to write out a rule and fully explain it, and someone just refuses to believe everybody.

When it's you against the world in officiating, bet on the world.

This is why I made the following statement in my initial post:

The least we can do is reply; post the appropriate rule and move on from there.