Throw-in/Backcourt violation?

[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 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...

[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.

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.

[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.