Throw-in/Backcourt violation?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Gimlet25id

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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

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).

[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!

[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!

[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.

[Gimlet25id]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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.

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....

[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.

[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.

[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!)