backcourt
 

I've seen posted a few times a list of 4 or 5 requirements for a backcourt violation. Can someone repost it here please?

My best memory:
team control frontcourt
last touched by offense in frontcourt
ball goes to backcourt
first touched by offense.


How about this scenario:
-Team A control frontcourt
-A1 last touches ball in frontcourt
-ball goes backcourt
-ball comes back to frontcourt (backspin, hits official, ...) without touching any player. (ball clearly has frontcourt status)
A1 touches the ball.

Backcourt violation?

Technically, the wording is

1) team control
2)front court status
3) team A last to touch before ball achieves backcourt status
4)team A first to touch after ball achieves backcourt status

If you evaluate this play with the 4 criteria rainmaker posted for ya, you will conclude that this is a backcourt violation.

Why??? A1 never touched the ball while it had backcourt status, so how could it be called a backcourt violation?

Does it matter where A1 touches the ball after it went into the back court, as per R9-1?

If A1, who was completely in the front-court, dribbled on the center line, and the dribble then hit A1 who was still completely in the front court, is that legal also?

Good point. Guess the season is fast approaching and it is time to start doing some reading. :o

Know what? Some of these calls are a heckuva lot easier when you can actually see them in a game rather than read about them. Seriously. It's like the jump stop- pivot- travel questions that they throw on the exam every year. For me, it's easier to call those in a game than try to figure out the exam question.

You'd never miss that backcourt one in real life.

In the posted scenario, once the ball returns to the frontcourt without being touched in the backcourt or by team B, the ball gains frontcourt status and is retrieved by A1. Backcourt violation?

Yes -- all the requirements were met.

Yes, Luke. Search your feelings. You know it to be true!

Sorry!

In order to be a violation, the team in control has to be the last to touch it before it goes into the backcourt and then the first to touch it after it has been in the backcourt. There's no requirement that they touch it while it's in the backcourt.

I feel a quiz coming on....maybe even a new one.

NOT a backcourt violation!!!!
 

This cannot be a backcourt violation. A1 never touched the ball while the ball had backcourt location. When the ball backs up and hit the ref in the frontcourt, then the ball has frontcourt location (rule 4,4,4). A1, in the frontcourt, grabs a ball that is in the frontcourt. Play on! End of story!
In Rule 9,9,1 you have to assume that the player in front court went into backcourt to retreive the ball and then you have a backcourt violation!

Sorry, kycat, but you are wrong. There's no requirement in the rule that the ball be touched in the backcourt, or that the ball have backcourt status when it's touched. Only that the ball did go from the FC to the BC and team A was the last to touch and the first to touch (see above in the thread for the specific criteria).

Hey KY, glad to have you pitch in here.

Unfortunately, that is irrelevant. The violation is not for touching the ball in the backcourt. The violation is for being the first to touch the ball after causing the ball to go into the backcourt.

Again, true, but irrelevant. Who caused the ball to go into the backcourt? (By that, I mean who touched it last before it went into the backcourt?) A1. Who was the first to touch it after it went into the backcourt? A1 again. Violation.

BTW, rule citations are given with dashes, not commas. Just for clarity (so we know if we're talking about a rule or a case play), your citation should look like 4-4-4.

Why would we assume that, when it's not written there?

why do I have a sudden desire to eat popcorn?

Nah, he'll figure it out.

I actually searched and reviewed your quiz before posting this question. After taking, failing, reviewing, studying your quiz a few years back I thought I knew this rule pretty well. But this is a new angle to the issue I couldn't find in your quiz.

No, but in my situation the ball clearly gets frontcourt status before being touched. Although it appeared to meet the standards for backcourt according to the letter of the rule-that answer didn't feel right to me. I am not going to argue though. If you, Chuck, and BktBallRef all think it is a violation I will just sit back eat some popcorn and let someone else hash out a losing battle.

In reply to JR:
Sure, fine, just forget about the guy who gave the original answer! :mad:

humble apologies. I should add nevadaref, rainmaker,...

If I give you some of my popcorn will you forgive me?

Good thing I like popcorn. :)

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.

This passage tells us what we need to know. It makes no difference whether the ball is touched in the backcourt, only that A1 is the first to touch AFTER it's been in the backcourt.

Example:
I'm standing in the FC, holding the ball. I bounce pass to you, the ball hits the division line, you catch the ball while completely standing in the FC. Is this a BC violation? Look at the rule above. Darn tootin' it is.

You guys are going to tell me that if you have a player standing in frontcourt picking up a ball that has frontcourt position you are going to call a backcourt violation????? You guys are insane and the coach will eat your lunch! If nothing and no one is in the backcourt, how can you possibly call backcourt?????:confused:

And then after he looks up the rule, she'll eat crow.

Because that's the rule. The rule isn't "being in the backcourt illegally" or "touching in the backcourt illegally."

Backcourt is backcourt
 

And if the player steps on the backcourt line with his foot after being in FC you won't call that backcourt either?

As long as its the rule, it doesn't matter what the coach thinks.

Thanks
David

Hey kycat1,

Most of the officials here know the rules and will call the appropriately. Most of them here also know how to handle a game and a coach. The coach might eat your lunch, but it wouldn't be allowed by a strong official. Maybe your are the insane one. :rolleyes:

So you make your calls based on what the coach is going to say after you blow your whistle? :confused:

Partner, with all due respect, please learn the rules or get out of officiating. You make it more difficult for every official who tries to call the game correctly.

Maybe this will help...
 

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.

So....if a player dribbling in the front court retreats close to the center line, bounces the ball </b>on</b> the center line, and then touches the ball on the rebound while still standing completely in the front court....that also <b>isn't</b> a backcourt violation, kycat? That would be insane also if one of us called that?

Lah me......

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.

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.

Apples and oranges!!!!
 

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.:D
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.

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 <b>where</b> the ball is subsequently touched. All that matters, by rule, is <b>who</b> 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.

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.

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? ;)

The following post demonstrates that your claim is clearly incorrect!

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. :rolleyes:

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

People that come here usually <b>want</b> 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 <b>initially</b> is completely different than <b>refusing</b> to understand something that is being told to him over and over....and kycat still simply refuses to believe <b>anybody</b>. 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.

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.:D

Yes, it is but it may not be called. This falls into the category of everybody stares and thinks "What the hell??" By the time you figure out there is no answer to this question, the violation has sometimes passed you by. I personally am guilty of this, but I may be the only one.

This is not true. The FIBA rule is very similar to the USA one(s). It is not at all similar to an OOB situation, nor there is a "delayed violation".

However, in the case under consideration, we would not call a violation, because 30.1.2 mentions explicitly "touch the ball in the backcourt".

As usual, the FIBA rule is definitely worse; for example, there is no special case when the dribbler goes from backcourt to frontcourt. Just imagine: if one foot has touched the FC and the other is in the BC, it is theoretically a violation to lift the foot in the FC. Of course we teach to look not so closely in those situations.

Ciao

Thanks for the clarification. I thought someone had posted that it was not necessary for a player to touch the ball elsewhere on the forum, but I must have misunderstood the post.

Never mind.

I asked a rules interpreter for an explaination why I was wrong!
 

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!

We didn't think you were stupid for not thinking it was a backcourt violation, we thought you were stupid for not reading the rules references that were being posted. :)

You state interpreter may be related to Kurt Whats-his-name in Illinois. ;)

Naw, just tell him to log on this site. We'll be glad to train him.

Sounds like he could <b>really</b> use some training.:)

Hey, don't be raggin' on Illinois. I might hafta' send Mr. Urlacher over to straighten you out...

I would be curious to see if kycat1's interpreter comes back with a specific rules reference to back up the response. Of course, it could be like Kurt Whats-his-name's response, an off-the-cuff response without actually checking it. ;)

Jmo, but a likelier option might be kycat not giving the interpreter the play as written in this thread. I can't see any state interpreter...anywhere....screwing up this one. It's just too basic and easy a ruling to make.

Given the number of officials that come here that don't know the backcourt rule, do you really think is it not likely that at least 1 out of 50 state interpreters could get it wrong?

Let me put it this way, Camron, I would hope not. And if one did, I would be surprised.

But, I guess stranger things have happened.....

It just isn't a tough call imo; it's pretty straightforward.

one in a million
 

you do say the ball has front court status, which means it is no longer in the back court. no violation as described. if the back spin caused it to roll on the court back into the front court, once it is in the FC, no violation. However what is interesting is if the back spin caused it to bounce. It hits the back court, bounces and due to back spin begins it's return to the front court. However, while still in the air but before it touches the front court, the offensive team touches the ball. Back over, even if the ball has crossed the center court division line in the air but not touched the front court yet, violation. I have never seen this happen.

Sigh.....

Completely wrong.

jallen,
You have the same incorrect understanding as kycat. Please read all of the posts in this entire thread.

LMOA !!!!!!!!!!! :D

Now I'm ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D


Sadly, I have to agree. There are just way too many officials out there who don't know the backcourt rule. Someone somewhere has to be teaching it incorrectly. :(

It looks like it's time for BktBallRef's annual exam, methinks.

Why? Why would we be interested in his opinion when we know he is wrong?

Just because he's a state interpreter doesn't mean he can't be wrong. I've heard some state interpreters stand before a state rules clinic gathering and say some completely wrong things.

You're guy is wrong. He's as wrong as the day is long, just as you are. No amount of questioning him will change that.

Thats one problem with NFHS
 

This is another example of one thing "wrong" with the NFHS. Instead of simply giving an answer by rule they simply try and defer to the state.

As obvious by this state interpretation, the state guys sometimes don't know the rules.

In basketball and baseball (the two sports that I officiate) every year I get intrerpretations from the state that simply do NOT follow the rules.

I know in our state basketball meeting last night there were several things said that had me shaking my head in disbelief.

He said several things that simply are "not" in the rules; however, its a moot point to argue because they always think they are right.

I'm going to email him today just to satisfy my curiosity.

NFHS wants everyone on the same page, but they don't want to take the extra steps necessary to achieve their goal IMO.

Thanks
David

Good points, David.

Maybe the NFHS rulesmakers were just taking it for granted that their state interpreters knew how to read.

Silly NFHS rulesmakers.....:D

One way that I've always liked to view the backcourt rule is to make it similar to the OOB rule and FT violations...

View it like a delayed violation for going frontcourt to backcourt if the team in control (A) caused (in the OOB rule sense) it to be in the backcourt. If the next team (B) to touch it is the other team, the violation is ignored. If the next team to touch it is the team that has team control (A), violation.

Interesting
 

I understand everything that has been said in this thread and I'm sorry for bringing it back to the surface, but in reading rule 9-12-1 it says the following:
"A player shall not be the first to touch the ball in his or her backcourt when the ball came from the front court..."
Now I also realize that the A.R. posted is a direct interpretation of the rule, but it does seem to contradict it to an extent.

Finally got a reposnse from NFHS
 

:) I just now finally got a respnse from Mary Struckoff from NFHS Rules committee about this play that was strongly argued in the original post. Many of you said I was completely wrong and we agreed to disagree. I have copied Mary's reply and her interpretation of this ruling. please see below!

Sorry for the delay and thanks for your patience.

Actually, I have given this much thought and have been thinking about it for some time now.

I do believe the intent of the rule is that where the ball is touched is important. If it comes back to the frontcourt after touching the official in the backcourt and the offensive player regains control in the frontcourt, both have frontcourt status and no violation has occurred. They just got lucky that the ball hit the official and came back....that can be true of an errant pass about to fly out of bounds and hits the official and stays inbounds.....In order to be a violation, it must be touched in the backcourt.

I will run this by the committee in April to make sure they agree and see if they want to make any editorial changes to the rule itself.

Mary

Mary Struckhoff
NFHS Assistant Director
Basketball Rules Editor/National Interpreter

If it happens this way, I will NOT call an over and back violation!:D

Though I personally like Ms. Struckhoff's interpretation, it is contridicted by the wording in FED rule 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.

The current FED wording makes no mention of the play becoming legal if the balls itself regains f/c status.

I myself would like to see the rule changed so that the play is legal. But until then I would have to rule it a b/c violation.

There is really no debate for the NCAA interpretation b/c the A.R. specifically cites this play as a violation.

1) The difference between the "back court" play and the "OOB" that Mary uses is that the ball went to the backcourt but was only "about to fly OOB". If, in the original play, the ball was "about to go the the back court" but was prevented from doing so by the official, I agree, there's no violation. Or, if in Mary's play, the ball hit the official who was OOB, the ball would be OOB.

2) It seems to be that a ball from the FC that goes BC, hits an official and returns to the FC should be treated the same as a ball that is in the BC, goes to the FC, hits an official and returns to the BC. 4.4.4B is the second (BC-FC-BC) play, and it's a violation. So, I think the first play (FC-BC-FC) should also be a violation.

To those who think this should be legal:
 

The reason this is illegal is because the violating team would be using more of the court while in team control in their front court than is permissible by the (intended) rules. The best example of this is the trapped player in the FC near the division line reaching back and bounce-passing the ball so that it touches the backcourt or the (division line) on its way to another A player in the frontcourt. If you're in favor of this being legal, then logically, you should be in favor of having the division line be in effect only as a temporary boundary, relative only to ten-second backcourt rules - after which, by the logic of such a play being legal, (and until the team going the other direction gains team control,) the division line would essentially disappear for purposes of rule applications.

Just my opinion, of course.

Edited to include: This would give a new meaning to the term "spread offense.";)

Excellent analysis. To have a mirror play completely different would make no sense at all. To agree with Ms. Struckoff's tenative ruling above, 4.4.4B would have to be ruled legal also.

kycat1, Thanks for following up on this issue. I admire your tenacity. I disagree with your rule interp, but that's not the point. It looks like a positive will come out of this in the manner of a clarification.

I can only hope that those on the NFHS committee can talk some sense into Ms. Struckhoff. The NFHS should not change its current rule, nor should it deviate from the NCAA ruling on this play. To do so would only make the HS game more confusing.

I sincerely hope that the NFHS just issues a clarification or adds a new case book play that is identical to the NCAA AR.

thought I had a pretty good handle...
 

ok here we go.... a question I got today.....A has the ball in the front court. A1 shoots the ball hits the rim, ball bounces toward the backcourt. A2 tips the ball but doesn't control it, the ball goes to the backcourt, where A3 recovers it. Backcourt violation?? 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.

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???

I'm thinking the interpretation is continous team control. The shot broke the chain of team control.

I don't know which set of rules you guys are referring to but I think in FIBA the rule is:

a) Team Control
b) Last to touch in the frontcourt
c) First to touch in the backcourt

In that case I think it is not a violation, as A1 never touched the ball while it is in the backcourt. The 3rd criteria is missing. No violation.

per rule 4-12.

With all due respect
 

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....

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).

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.

CMA, think about the definition of team control.
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.

response to Kycat1
 

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

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

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.

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