Throw-in/Backcourt violation?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

B1 touches the ball ending the throw-in.

A2 leps from his FC, therefore having FC status.

When he catches the ball, he has FC status and he establishes team control.

When he lands in the BC, he has violated.

It's no different than catching said ball and throwing it to a teammate in the BC.

Folks may not like it, it may not fit what people have always said, but it is a violation. This play is not DURING a throw-in.

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

Immediately after the throw-in ends in this situation, there is no team control by either team. Therefore I conclude that the team not in control in this instance means either team. Therefore, no matter who jumps up and secures control in mid-air, he is entitled to come down anywhere on the court without a violation.

Do you suppose those NFHS guys would pay some of us to proofread?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Immediately after the throw-in ends in this situation, there is no team control by either team.

But there is team control when A2 catches the ball. This is EXACTLY why he can't catch a pass while in flight from the FC and pass to a teammate in the BC.

Therefore I conclude that the team not in control in this instance means either team. Therefore, no matter who jumps up and secures control in mid-air, he is entitled to come down anywhere on the court without a violation.

Then cite your rule reference because the one above ain't it. A2 is not a defender and the play is not during a jump ball or a throw-in. Therefore, your cite does not apply.

Another play:

A1 shoots, ball comes off the backboard and rim hard and bounds all the way out to the division line. A2 leaps from his FC, catches the ball while airborne, and lands in the BC. Is this a violation? Damn skippy it is.

Sorry guys but you're wrong. As the rule is written, the first play posted by Zooch is a violation.

[Zoochy]

I still have a thought on the 2nd play...

(2) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their backcourt (Team B’s frontcourt). A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from their frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt.
BktBallRef says...
LEGAL. The rule allows a defensive player to leave his FC, catch the ball and land in his BC.
I am not 100% sure that B2 is a defensive player. Here is why.
There is no defination for offensive or defensive player. The only time I see the word 'defense' in the rule book is in reference to a player on the team that is not 'in control' of the ball.
Block/Charge 4-7-2a. A player ... with the ball ... avoid contact if a defensive player .....
Free Throw Administration 8-1-4a. Marked lane spaces ... four defensive and two offensive. When A1 has disposal of the ball for free throws there is player and team control.
So my point is that there is NO team control during a Throw-in. Thus when B2catches the ball after it had been deflected by teammate B1, he has now established player/team control from a loose ball. Since B2 has Frontcourt status when he jumps and catches the ball and now lands in backcourt, backcourt violation occurs.
In conclusion, the only legal play would be play 3, because 9-9-3 would still apply. B2 has caught a throw in with both feet off the floor after leaving his frontcourt.
WOW... think about it and get back to me. OK?

[just another ref]

This is not what you are looking for, but where is the definition of a defender?
This ball has been deflected. Neither team is in control. Who is the defender here?

[rainmaker]

Tony, I'm not saying you're wrong here, but I'm just trying to understand. I always thought the exception was based not on the fact of the throw-in but on the lack of team control. So here's another sitch:

If the ball is shot, misses and is being tipped around with no one in control, and it goes flying toward the other end of the court, and A1 jumps from A's FC, catches the ball in mid-air, and lands in the BC, is that a violation? When he jumped there was no FC or BC, because there was no team control. So when is his FC or BC status determined?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Tony, I'm not saying you're wrong here, but I'm just trying to understand. I always thought the exception was based not on the fact of the throw-in but on the lack of team control.

rainmaker,
I believe that I adequately described the crux of the debate in post #5. You will see that I even accurately predicted Tony's answers therein (except for the final question, but he agreed with my answer).

Tony takes the position that it is not the lack of team control BEFORE the player catches the ball that allows the exception, but the fact that the play occurs during three specific events of a basketball game, namely a throw-in, a jump ball, or a defensive player stealing the ball.

This is because of the old wording of the rule. It 2002-03 the backcourt rule was structured as 9-1, 9-2, exception 1, exception 2, note. In 2003-04 one of the "Major Editorial Changes" was "9-3-3 New Article was added to replace the previous exceptions and note." So the rule now has the form 9-1, 9-2, 9-3.

Tony's logic is that since the NFHS only made an editorial change and not a rule change, they did not intend to alter the meaning of the rule in any way. Therefore, despite the new structure, the rule is still the same as it was back in the 2002-03 season.

Contrast that with the stance that I take that we need to enforce the rules as written. It is unfortunate that the NFHS made an editorial change that had unintended consequences, but they did. It happens from time to time.

The new form and language makes the rule more inclusive and legalizes plays that weren't legal before. Why? Because of the principles of English grammar, sentence structure, and the meaning of words in a parenthetical. In other words that is what it says when a reasonable person reads the words as they are currently printed.

The result is that any play in which there is no team control prior to the player who jumped from his frontcourt catching the ball is now legal. Tony disagrees with that sentence and he has solid reasoning for doing so.

Now you must pick how you interpret the rule as currently formulated.
The BktBallRef interpretation or the Nevadaref interpretation have different consequences when calling the game.

For example, for the play about which you inquired (which incidently was already posted by Tony in post #17 of the thread ):

Originally Posted by rainmaker

So here's another sitch:

If the ball is shot, misses and is being tipped around with no one in control, and it goes flying toward the other end of the court, and A1 jumps from A's FC, catches the ball in mid-air, and lands in the BC, is that a violation? When he jumped there was no FC or BC, because there was no team control. So when is his FC or BC status determined?

The BktBallRef interpretation gives: Violation, the action of A1 jumping from his frontcourt did not occur during a throw-in, jump ball, or while he was a defensive player. Therefore, despite the fact that there was no team control during this time, no exception is granted under 9-9-3 and the player has violated per 9-9-1.

The Nevadaref interpretation gives: Legal play, A1 was "a player from the team not in control" when he jumped from his frontcourt to catch the ball because team control ended with the try for goal and had yet to be established by either team following the try. Unless A1 is a player from the team in control, then he must be considered a player from the team not in control. Therefore, 9-9-3 applies to him and he is permitted to land in his backcourt.

(BTW, strictly speaking, when A1 jumped there was no team control, but there was FC and BC status for both the ball and the player per 4-4-3 and 4-35-3. As soon as A1 catches the ball, there is both player and team control and the ball's status becomes the same as that of the player per 4-4-1+2.)

So you can think about this and decide for yourself how to call it, or you can check with your state rules interpreter and get an official ruling that applies in your location. Best wishes.

[FrankHtown]

A1 shoots, ball comes off the backboard and rim hard and bounds all the way out to the division line. A2 leaps from his FC, catches the ball while airborne, and lands in the BC. Is this a violation? Damn skippy it is.

Doesn't this seem counter-intuitive though? If A1 lets the ball go into the backcourt, then picks it up, there is no violation at all, but if A1 catches it, and steps on the division line, it's a violation.

Is this really the intent of the backcourt rule?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

If the ball is shot, misses and is being tipped around with no one in control, and it goes flying toward the other end of the court, and A1 jumps from A's FC, catches the ball in mid-air, and lands in the BC, is that a violation? When he jumped there was no FC or BC, because there was no team control. So when is his FC or BC status determined?

That is not rue, Juulie. The player has either FC or BC status based on where he's standing or where he last left the floor. (4-35-1, 3) It makes no difference whether he is touching/holding the ball. He still has status.

When he leaves the floor, he has FC status. When he catches the ball, he still has FC status and the ball has now attained FC status. When he hands in the BC, he has VIOLATED.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The Nevadaref interpretation gives: Legal play, A1 was "a player from the team not in control" when he jumped from his frontcourt to catch the ball because team control ended with the try for goal and had yet to be established by either team following the try. Unless A1 is a player from the team in control, then he must be considered a player from the team not in control. Therefore, 9-9-3 applies to him and he is permitted to land in his backcourt.

No, it does not. If this were true, then it would be legal to catch the ball while airborne and pass it to a teammate in the BC. But it isn't, now is it?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by FrankHtown

A1 shoots, ball comes off the backboard and rim hard and bounds all the way out to the division line. A2 leaps from his FC, catches the ball while airborne, and lands in the BC. Is this a violation? Damn skippy it is.

Doesn't this seem counter-intuitive though? If A1 lets the ball go into the backcourt, then picks it up, there is no violation at all, but if A1 catches it, and steps on the division line, it's a violation.

Is this really the intent of the backcourt rule?

Yes, it is. You can apply your conclusion to other BC violations, too.

A1 ends his dribble and passes the ball. B1 deflects it, A2 leaps from his FC, catches the ball and lands in his BC. Is this a violation? Yes. Would it have been a violation if he had allowed the ball to go into the BC and then retrieved it? No, it would not.

[kycat1]

This is a very basic ruling on the court. Rule 9-9-3 says ... A player from the team not in control: so who has team control during a throw in and during a shot? NO TEAM! Rule 4-12-6.
Therefore by basic logic, any player on the court may jump from their frontcourt and catch a throw-in or a rebound and then land in their backcourt without a violation even if the ball has been deflected!

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by kycat1

This is a very basic ruling on the court. Rule 9-9-3 says ... A player from the team not in control: so who has team control during a throw in and during a shot? NO TEAM! Rule 4-12-6.
Therefore by basic logic, any player on the court may jump from their frontcourt and catch a throw-in or a rebound and then land in their backcourt without a violation even if the ball has been deflected!

I would argue that for the purposes of this rule only one team can be considered not in control. Why? It says the team not in control not a team not in control. The rule does not consider times when neither team is in control other than throw-ins and jump balls. Therefore I am with BktBallRef.

[kycat1]

And you both would be wrong!!!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by kycat1

And you both would be wrong!!!

Might as well put me down for being wrong too, along with the others.

[Grail]

I have to ask, though it says THE team not in control, which team is in control? The definitions say that there is no team contol during a throw in, and if there is no Team control, there can be no Player Control, so...