Throw-in/Backcourt violation?

[bgtg19]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Folks, I honestly don't understand why we're having difficulty grasping this principal [sic].

I agree with Scrapper. I don't think it's so much that people are having difficulty grasping the principle (by the way, grasping the principal is NOT recommended for officials!), it's just that there are two plausible and defensible interpretations here. I happen to agree with the BktBallRef interpretation, but I can see the validity of the alternate interpretation, too. (By the way, Nevadaref's explanation of the differences between the interpretations is as clear as can be -- a beautifully crafted post!)

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Gimlet25id

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?

Yes and yes.

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

Yes, it was. When a player with FC status touches the ball, the ball now has FC status, until such time has it touches the BC.

4-35-1
The location of a player or nonplayer is determined by where the player is touching the floor as far as being:
a. Inbounds or out of bounds.
b. In the frontcourt or backcourt.
c. Outside (behind/beyond) or inside the three-point field-goal line.

4-35-3
The location of an airborne player with reference to the three factors of Article 1 is the same as at the time such player was last in contact with the floor or an extension of the floor, such as a bleacher.

4-4-2
A ball which is in contact with a player or with the court is in the frontcourt if neither the ball nor the player is touching the backcourt.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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.

You're kinda writing your own book now, aren't you? To play along for a minute, okay, now we're no longer talking about "team control" but we are talking about being "in control" of the ball. B1 deflects the ball, and it bounces high in the air. Now, it is quite a stretch to say anyone is "a defender," and clearly neither team is "in control."

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by kycat1

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!

Kittycat, since I'm not a very good artist and can't draw pictures, have someone read my post to you.

Yes, the rule is very simple and specific, yet you still don't understand it.

I said the thrower has CONTROL of the ball.

I did not say the thrower has TEAM control.

I did not say the thrower has PLAYER control.

The rule says, "A player from the team not in CONTROL..."

The rule does NOT say, "A player from the team that does not have TEAM control..."

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______________


Definition of the word CONTROL

con‧trol  /kənˈtroʊl/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-trohl]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciationverb, -trolled, -trol‧ling, noun

–verb (used with object)

1.	to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command.

2.	to hold in check; curb: to control a horse; to control one's emotions; to control a ball!

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by just another ref

You're kinda writing your own book now, aren't you?

No, new Mr. Grammar Guy, I'm not.

I simply understand the difference in control, team control, and player control. The rule book does not say team control, it says control.

I'm done. Argue it among yourselves all you want. I keep saying the same things over and over and it ain't sticking.

EDIT: I'll just say if the NFHS comes out next year and gives us a different interpretation, great. But until then, it seems quite clear to me what the present rule says.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

Sorry, but it can't work that way. Either team may make this play on a given throwin or jump ball (whether you're in Tony's or Nevada's camp).

FWIW (not much, I know), I'm in Nevada's camp on this. The rule, as written, indicates that the rule applies when a player's team is not in control of the ball and that the three examples given are not all-inclusive. Not a hill worth dying on for me, though.

[Gimlet25id]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Yes and yes.



Yes, it was. When a player with FC status touches the ball, the ball now has FC status, until such time has it touches the BC.

4-35-1
The location of a player or nonplayer is determined by where the player is touching the floor as far as being:
a. Inbounds or out of bounds.
b. In the frontcourt or backcourt.
c. Outside (behind/beyond) or inside the three-point field-goal line.

4-35-3
The location of an airborne player with reference to the three factors of Article 1 is the same as at the time such player was last in contact with the floor or an extension of the floor, such as a bleacher.

4-4-2
A ball which is in contact with a player or with the court is in the frontcourt if neither the ball nor the player is touching the backcourt.

Isn't all bets off if there is no team control while the ball is being batted? Like during a rebound. A1 shoots the ball it rebounds long off the rim, tipped into the air by B1. While the ball is in the air A1 jumps from their frontcourt and catches the ball in the air and lands in the frontcourt.

Its the same during a throw in. No team control so a player can jump from their frontcourt, catch the ball iin the air. and land in the back court without a violation. Your argument would be that there was team control as soon as the player caught the ball in the air since the player jumped from the frontcourt.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Kittycat, since I'm not a very good artist and can't draw pictures, have someone read my post to you.

Yes, the rule is very simple and specific, yet you still don't understand it.

I said the thrower has CONTROL of the ball.

I did not say the thrower has TEAM control.

I did not say the thrower has PLAYER control.

The rule says, "A player from the team not in CONTROL..."

The rule does NOT say, "A player from the team that does not have TEAM control..."

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______________


Definition of the word CONTROL

con‧trol  /kənˈtroʊl/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-trohl]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciationverb, -trolled, -trol‧ling, noun

–verb (used with object)

Based on this post, I assume you'd call a violation if A2 jumps from FC, catches A1's inbounds pass, and lands in the BC. Unless I'm reading this wrong.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

rainmaker,
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.

In the 02-03 rulebook exception 1 states: It is not a violation when after a jump ball or a throw-in, a player is the first to secure control of the ball while both feet are off the floor and he/she then returns to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt.

As written here, the play we have kicked around so much is clearly legal. NFHS made a "major editorial change" here. When I look under the major editorial changes this year, every one starts with the word "clarified." This change did not clarify anything for me, so does anyone have the 03-04 book, which should state the details of this change?

[Zoochy]

The problem comes into play is when B1 deflects the Throw-in. This ends the Throw-in requirement. That is where BktBallRef states rule 9-9-3 no longer applys.
Many (including myself) would like the rule to state that if there is no team control, then a player can jump from frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and be allowed to complete a normal landing without a backcourt violation.

[Adam]

Many, including me, think the parenthetical statement is a list of examples to illustrate when a team would not be in control; and that list is not meant to be all-inclusive. If it's at all ambiguous, I tend to lean towards letting play go on, though.

[BktBallRef]

All of you who were wrong need to send me $5.

And there's a bunch of you!!!!!

Paypal is the simplest way: [email protected].