I think what some may have miss is that. Although, there is not team control during a throw in or try for goal. What we have is a live loose ball. The try has ended and according to the play it was unsuccessful. Therefore, Team A was the last in control. IAW R4-12-5 player control was established when A1 lept from his frontcourt secures control of the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt. Thus, a violation.

I think the intent of the rule is when team control is established while the player securing that control is airborn. The rule is allowing for that person to make a normal landing with the ball, regardless of if the jump started from FC or BC.

I will grant that the way the rule is written it can be interpreted to ambiguously. To me, 9-9-3 is clear. The team not in control can jump, secure team control and make a normal landing. Until I see a specific interpretation from the FED or a case play it will not be a violation in the games I ref.

That is just the way I see it.

The comment in bold has nothing to do with any part of this play. But the conclusion based on the rule you cited is correct.

[QUOTE=Ref in PA]I think the intent of the rule is when team control is established while the player securing that control is airborn. The rule is allowing for that person to make a normal landing with the ball, regardless of if the jump started from FC or BC.

Where was the player last location be the leap FC look at rule R4-4

Agree !

I humbly submit that this is another oversight in the specific wording in the book. When they say "the team not in control" and then list the three examples in parenthesis, it is quite possible that these were intended to be the only three cases where it applied. But, the fact is a deflection on a throw-in does not change the control status of the ball, and in this case there is no team control by either team. Therefore, I conclude it was intended that this player be allowed to catch the ball and come down in backcourt. If this ever happens, which as far as I can testify personally, never has since the beginning of time, this will be my interpretation, but if I am calling with Tony or JR, even if it is the state finals, and they call the violation right in front of me from across the court, I won't be mad.:)

The only angle which has not been addressed here:

Jump ball to start the game: A1 tips the ball hard straight down. It hits the floor and bounces high in the air. A2 leaps from his frontcourt, catches the ball and lands in backcourt. According to me and Nevada, this is ok. According to some esteemed members, who are older and/or wiser than us, it is a violation. Correct?

That's not true. The rule only applies to a defensive player or during a throw-in or a jump ball. There's no other time this applies.

When the ball hit the floor, the jump ball ended. Therefore, it is a violation.

Read the rule. "...the team not in control..." The rule says nothing about team control. On a throw-in, the thrower has control of the ball. The statement in the rule book has nothing to do with team or player control at this point. If I'm the thrower, I have control. If you are my opponent, you are a defender. If I release the ball, then my team was the last team in control. My team did NOT have team control.

If the jumper tipped the ball then it hit the floor then it's not a violation. Rule 6-3 Art.7. no team control was ever established in the front court so this is a legal play.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

When the player leaps from the FC and grabs the ball, TEAM CONTROL and FC STATUS is established. If the throw-in or the jump ball have already ended, then he cannot legally land in his BC.

There is no rule that says "Team and player control is established when a player holds or dribbles the ball WHILE TOUCHING THE FLOOR." It makes no difference whether he's airborne or not. When he possesses the ball, TC and PC are established.

Folks, I honestly don't understand why we're having difficulty grasping this principal. :confused:

I think it's because we really really want the rule to be that any player whose team doesn't have team control can secure the ball while in the air and land in the backcourt. It's easier to administer and seems more fair (to me, anyway).

We will have agree to disagree. The exception, as I read the rule, if for landing when team control is secured in the air.

I think you are examining this way too closely. To me "the team not in control" does mean the team does not have "team control." To phrase it that way eliminates the use of team twice "the team not in team control."

In the fed, there is no team control during a throw-in. If the throw-in is touched, but not controled, the throw-in ends, but there is still no team control - not until it is secured by a player. Hopefully we are in agreement up to this point. Therefore, when A1 jumps, even though his team initiated the play via throw-in, team A still does not have team control. When A1 secures the ball in the air, he is from a team that did not have team control. Therefore he is allowed a normal landing under the exception.

BktBallRef - Please read rule 4-12-6 first before you state that a player throwing the ball in has control.
Again, no team or player control, then any player may catch the ball if they are in the air after they left their FC and land into BC. The rule is very simple and specific. NO VIOLATION!:D

As much as I want you to be wrong and can't seem to find it in the book. I stand corrected!!!!!

What if A1 is bringing the ball up the floor and B1 bats the ball away and while trying to recover the loose ball B1 hits it again off the floor and it goes up in the air. While it is in the air A2 jumps from the frontcourt and catches the batted ball in the air and lands in the back court. Is this a violation?

What if after the jump the ball hits the floor and the ball is batted by A2, then B2 the ball goes up in the air and A3 jumps from the frontcourt and catches the batted ball in the air and lands in the back court. Is this a violation?

It just doesn't seem like it should be because the ball never was established in the front court.

I may just be reading to much into this....