The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   defensive steal (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/29070-defensive-steal.html)

palmettoref Tue Oct 24, 2006 08:30am

defensive steal
 
Hey guys. Just want clarification on this play ----> Defensive player B1 jumps from his/her frontcourt and while in the air intercepts a pass. B1ís momentum is such that he/she lands with the first foot clearly in Bís frontcourt. B1ís other foot then comes down in Bís backcourt after the first foot was down in the frontcourt. Is this a violation?

JM_00 Tue Oct 24, 2006 08:38am

no violation as per rule 9-9-3

Art. 3... A player from the team not in control (defensive player or during a jump ball or throw-in) may legally jump from his 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.

Camron Rust Tue Oct 24, 2006 02:15pm

I agree with JM.

One caveat...B1 does not have the freedom to pass to a teammate in the backcourt while still airborne. B1 and the ball are in the FC but due to the exception, does not violation. However, the exception is only for the airborne player...not teammates.

palmettoref Tue Oct 24, 2006 03:04pm

I agree that a player may jump from his FC and secure control of the ball while in the air as described in this case play. After B1 secures the ball in the air, he has player/team control and once B1 lands with his first foot in the FC, doesn't he have FC status? And when his other foot touches in the BC, a BC violation occurs. Look at case 9.9.1 situation B.

Jurassic Referee Tue Oct 24, 2006 03:23pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by palmettoref
I agree that a player may jump from his FC and secure control of the ball while in the air as described in this case play. After B1 secures the ball in the air, he has player/team control and once B1 lands with his first foot in the FC, doesn't he have FC status? And when his other foot touches in the BC, a BC violation occurs. Look at case 9.9.1 situation B.

You need to read it again. You're describing part(b) of 9.9.1SitB which is legal. See the language of rule 9-9-3--"The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the <b>first</b> foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt".

JM_00 Tue Oct 24, 2006 03:26pm

Case 9.9.1 sit B, example A states that the player lands with both feet in the front court, then steps into the BC, this is a violation because they made a normal catch and established FC status In the other examples, (one foot in each FC and BC, and both feet in BC) there is no violation.

It doesn't matter what case you cite, rule 9-9-1 specifically makes an allowance for the play as you originally described it.

palmettoref Tue Oct 24, 2006 03:34pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
You need to read it again. You're describing part(b) of 9.9.1SitB which is legal. See the language of rule 9-9-3--"The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the <b>first</b> foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt".


JR,

If the first foot comes down in the FC, doesn't B1 have FC status? Therefore a violation if the other foot touches the BC following the first foot touching the FC?

palmettoref Tue Oct 24, 2006 03:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JM_00
Case 9.9.1 sit B, example A states that the player lands with both feet in the front court, then steps into the BC, this is a violation because they made a normal catch and established FC status In the other examples, (one foot in each FC and BC, and both feet in BC) there is no violation.

It doesn't matter what case you cite, rule 9-9-1 specifically makes an allowance for the play as you originally described it.

JM. A normal catch was made when B1 secured the ball in the air, came down in the FC first and established FC status. If he secures the ball in the air and lands with one foot in each the FC and BC, then you are right --- no violation because B1 has BC status.

Jurassic Referee Tue Oct 24, 2006 03:54pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by palmettoref
JR,

If the first foot comes down in the FC, doesn't B1 have FC status? Therefore a violation if the other foot touches the BC following the first foot touching the FC?

No, B1 does not have FC status when his <b>first</b> foot touches down. That's exactly what rule 9-9-3 is telling you. B1's landing is an <b>exception</b> to the normal way of determining frontcourt/backcourt status. The NFHS is saying that because B1 is completely <b>airborne</b>, he <b>doesn't</b> have his status determined until after <b>both</b> feet have landed. <b>After</b> landing, if B1 has one feet in the FC and one foot in the BC, then B1 now has BC status but also never has had frontcourt status.

Note that this exception only applies to a completely airborne player. If a player takes a throw-in or steals a pass with one foot already <b>on</b> the court, then, yes, where that foot is touching the court will determine their FC/BC status.

Camron Rust Tue Oct 24, 2006 04:29pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
No, B1 does not have FC status when his first foot touches down. That's exactly what rule 9-9-3 is telling you. B1's landing is an exception to the normal way of determining frontcourt/backcourt status. The NFHS is saying that because B1 is completely airborne, he doesn't have his status determined until after both feet have landed. After landing, if B1 has one feet in the FC and one foot in the BC, then B1 now has BC status but also never has had frontcourt status.

Note that this exception only applies to a completely airborne player. If a player takes a throw-in or steals a pass with one foot already on the court, then, yes, where that foot is touching the court will determine their FC/BC status.

While I have the same conclusion, I do not agree with the description.

The determination of B1's status is not delayed or unknown; B1 is in the frontcourt and has control of the ball...players and the ball always have a status. However, B1 is given exception to the backcourt violation despite having frontcourt status with contol of the ball before touching in the backcourt.

I make this claim because B1 s not allowed to pass to any other B player in the backcourt while airborne in this situation without causing a backcourt violation.

palmettoref Tue Oct 24, 2006 04:29pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
No, B1 does not have FC status when his <b>first</b> foot touches down. That's exactly what rule 9-9-3 is telling you. B1's landing is an <b>exception</b> to the normal way of determining frontcourt/backcourt status. The NFHS is saying that because B1 is completely <b>airborne</b>, he <b>doesn't</b> have his status determined until after <b>both</b> feet have landed. <b>After</b> landing, if B1 has one feet in the FC and one foot in the BC, then B1 now has BC status but also never has had frontcourt status.

Note that this exception only applies to a completely airborne player. If a player takes a throw-in or steals a pass with one foot already <b>on</b> the court, then, yes, where that foot is touching the court will determine their FC/BC status.

ok. thanks

JM_00 Tue Oct 24, 2006 04:53pm

I think that the purpose behind this exemption to determining FC status is to save us some headaches. When the player makes a catch and ends up with one foot FC and one foot BC, we are treating it as if both feet landed simultaneously.

Imagine trying to determine if you should call a violation because the FC foot landed 0.1 seconds or less before the BC foot. Or what if the defensive player was fumbling the ball when the first foot hit and then gained control once the BC foot came down? We already have enough difficult judgement calls to make. This rule makes our lives easier... (maybe we should have more rules like this;) )

Camron Rust Tue Oct 24, 2006 06:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JM_00
I think that the purpose behind this exemption to determining FC status is to save us some headaches. When the player makes a catch and ends up with one foot FC and one foot BC, we are treating it as if both feet landed simultaneously.

Imagine trying to determine if you should call a violation because the FC foot landed 0.1 seconds or less before the BC foot. Or what if the defensive player was fumbling the ball when the first foot hit and then gained control once the BC foot came down? We already have enough difficult judgement calls to make. This rule makes our lives easier... (maybe we should have more rules like this;) )

I disagree....it just moves the point of judgement. We still have to decide if the player catches the ball before or after the foot lands ...first foot in FC then catch, then other foot BC equals a violation (by the book anyway) whlie catch, then first foot down is not a violation. Still have to split hairs to get it right. Of course, if it is close, I'm going to err on the side of not blowing the whistle.

This rule's purpose is to allow the defense an opportunity to make a play on the ball near the midcourt line without jeapordizing turning it right back over just becasue the steal was at midcourt. Some of those situations still exist but this change (made about 5-7 years ago) removed a majority of them.

Nevadaref Wed Oct 25, 2006 03:14am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust
While I have the same conclusion, I do not agree with the description.

The determination of B1's status is not delayed or unknown; B1 is in the frontcourt and has control of the ball...players and the ball always have a status. However, B1 is given exception to the backcourt violation despite having frontcourt status with contol of the ball before touching in the backcourt.

I make this claim because B1 s not allowed to pass to any other B player in the backcourt while airborne in this situation without causing a backcourt violation.

I agree 100% with Camron's post. B1 does have FC status until the second foot lands, plus there is both player and team control. After landing the player then has backcourt status, but he is not penalized in this specific case because of the exception written into the NFHS rules in 9-9-3.

OHBBREF Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:55am

I think that the actual reason for the exception is the saftey of the player, to allow them to land withou the risk of injury to avoid the violation.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:21pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1