The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 24, 2006, 08:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 26
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?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 24, 2006, 08:38am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 24, 2006, 02:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,019
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 24, 2006, 03:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 26
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 24, 2006, 03:23pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,213
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 first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt".
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 24, 2006, 03:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 24, 2006, 03:34pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 26
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 first 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?
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 24, 2006, 03:40pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 26
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 24, 2006, 03:54pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,213
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 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.

Last edited by Jurassic Referee; Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 04:00pm.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 24, 2006, 04:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,019
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 24, 2006, 04:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 26
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.
ok. thanks
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 24, 2006, 04:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12
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 )
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 24, 2006, 06:33pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,019
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 25, 2006, 03:14am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,749
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 25, 2006, 11:55am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ohio, cincinnati
Posts: 813
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Coverage of Steal of third blackjack21 Baseball 33 Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:43pm
Steal of Home U_of_I_Blue Baseball 4 Fri Jun 24, 2005 01:35pm
walk steal? softbllmom Softball 21 Fri May 20, 2005 11:36am
Walking steal. Roger Greene Softball 37 Thu Sep 04, 2003 08:40am
Can we steal on foul tip? sasan14 Baseball 4 Thu Jul 26, 2001 03:30pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:14pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1