backcourt

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by cmathews

ok here we go.... a question I got today.....A has the ball in the front court. OK! A1 shoots the ball hits the rim, ball bounces toward the backcourt. NO TEAM CONTROL A2 tips the ball but doesn't control it,NO PLAYER OR TEAM CONTROL the ball goes to the backcourt, where A3 recovers it.OK! Backcourt violation?? NO! My original thought was no. No team control, no backcourt....however

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. Think of it this way.

Scenerio: A-1 dribbles the ball into team A FC the ball is passed to A3 located at the Free throw line. A3 attempts a pass back to A1 A3 pass is tipped by B4 the tipped pass touches A1 who is standing near the division line. Backcourt!! This fits the situation you mentioned above.

It doesn't say that the ball has to be in team control. If it has been in team control in the front court then is touched by A before going to back court where it is touched by A again.....It doesn't feel right to rule this way, but what is the reference that requires that the ball still be in team control when A is the last to touch it in the front court???

per rule 4-12.

[cmathews]

Truerookie,
With all due respect, your posted situation, does not fit the one I posted. In your situation, there is still team control. This is my point the rule says "shall not be the first to touch the ball in back court AFTER it has been in team control in the front court..."

Badnews, I am looking for something that substantiates the interpretation you mention...As I see it now there isn't any. That is why I am having the dilema this morning. Before yesterday if A1 shoots the ball after having team control in the front court, and the rebound went towards the back court was tipped by A2 and recovered in the back court by A3, I would have played on.....Today, I am thinking back court. This is why.

1 Team A had control in the front court
2 Team A was the last to touch the ball before it went to the back court
3 Team A was the first to touch the ball in the back court....

As the rule is written 2 and 3 occured after team A had team control in the front court......therefore a violation....like I said I don't like the feel of it, and I need some rules citations to make me "fell" better LOL....

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by cmathews

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.

You're being too literal. By your interpretation, we'd have many more violations because the ball has been in TC in the FC after the first posession by each team (in most games).

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by cmathews

Truerookie,
With all due respect, your posted situation, does not fit the one I posted. In your situation, there is still team control. This is my point the rule says "shall not be the first to touch the ball in back court AFTER it has been in team control in the front court..."

Badnews, I am looking for something that substantiates the interpretation you mention...As I see it now there isn't any. That is why I am having the dilema this morning. Before yesterday if A1 shoots the ball after having team control in the front court, and the rebound went towards the back court was tipped by A2 and recovered in the back court by A3, I would have played on.....Today, I am thinking back court. This is why.

1 Team A had control in the front court
2 Team A was the last to touch the ball before it went to the back court
3 Team A was the first to touch the ball in the back court....

As the rule is written 2 and 3 occured after team A had team control in the front court......therefore a violation....like I said I don't like the feel of it, and I need some rules citations to make me "fell" better LOL....

CMA, I'm with Bob on this one. I think you may be overthinking this one.

I look at team control as a continous chain. Once team control is lost the chain is broken and you are allowed to regain team control on any point on the court without regard to what happened in your previous team control session.

Think of it like football. A team throws an interceptions, interceptor fumbles, offensive team recovers. It is now consider a whole new set of downs, it is not a continuation of the previous series.

Once you lose team control, everything starts out fresh when you regain team control (except the shot clock if the ball doesn't hit the rim)

Another possible exception Player shoots an airball, ball deflects off B1, then deflects off A2, then A3 recovers in backcourt.

[Adam]

CMA, think about the definition of team control.

Originally Posted by Rule Book

4-12-2... A team is in control of the ball when a player of the team is in control, while a live ball is being passed among teammates and during an interrupted dribble.
4-12-3...Team control continues until:
a. The ball is in flight during a try or tap for goal.
b. An opponent secures control.
c. The ball becomes dead.

Okay, now that I've typed that, I'm leaving it there. I see now that Bob addressed your point. If we follow the logic you present, then there would be no need for a 10 second count after the first possession of the game for each team.

[jallen]

Way to go Kycat1, good work. There was a lot of smugness and rudeness assoicated with your excellent thoughts. Even after the fact there are those who just can't accept it. I guess there are those who know everything and have nothing to learn.
j. allen

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

CMA, I'm with Bob on this one. I think you may be overthinking this one.

I look at team control as a continous chain. Once team control is lost the chain is broken and you are allowed to regain team control on any point on the court without regard to what happened in your previous team control session.

Think of it like football. A team throws an interceptions, interceptor fumbles, offensive team recovers. It is now consider a whole new set of downs, it is not a continuation of the previous series.

Once you lose team control, everything starts out fresh when you regain team control (except the shot clock if the ball doesn't hit the rim)

Another possible exception Player shoots an airball, ball deflects off B1, then deflects off A2, then A3 recovers in backcourt.

guys I agree, but with that said the committee needs to address the way it is written because as written the situation would be a violation...and I honestly believe that no violation is the correct call, however no violation to me is not by rule, because I don't see that the way it is written "after team control" is pretty black and white...but thanks, I am going to keep calling as I would have ok now off to the game to hope it doesn't happen LOL

[Mountaineer]

Originally Posted by kycat1

Gentlemen,
I know I disagreed with all of you about this play so I said that maybe I was wrong but I wanted clarification from the rules committee at NFHS. I contacted the NFHS and they said all rule questions and interpretaions had to be resolved by your state rules authority. This is the person chosen by the NHFS to teach and interpret rules for our intire state. So I sent this backcourt question to my state rules authority for an interpretaion and explaination on exactly why would this be a backcourt violation (since many of you thought I was stupid for thinking that this could possibly NOT be a backcourt violation!).
Here is his answer copied from my e-mail : This would not be a backcourt violation.

If you have any further questions, please give me a call.

He is traveling the state this week conducting the annual state new basketball rules meeting for refs and coaches. I will see him on Wednesday and I will verify in person with him that he still thinks it is not a violation and let you all know why or why not!

I don't think anyone actually called you stupid. I would question your state rules interpreter though. WOW! I'm just curious about his interpretation of the wording "first to touch". I'd be very curious to see what Mary Struckoff would say . . . although I'm pretty sure I know what she'd say.

[cmathews]

mountaineer, look on page 5 of this thread for Mary's response