Throw-in/Backcourt violation?
 

4 plays. Legal or violation? And why!!!

(1) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their front court. A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1. A2 jumps from their frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt.

(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.

(3) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their backcourt (Team B’s frontcourt).
A1’s throw-in is intercepted by B1. B1 had jumped from their frontcourt, caught the ball in the air and lands first foot in the frontcourt, second foot in the backcourt.

(4) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their front court (Team B’s backcourt). A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from their backcourt court, catches the ball in the air and lands first foot in the frontcourt, second foot in the backcourt.

All legal plays. No control on throw in. There is an exception which allows the player who secures control with both feet off the floor, to make a normal landing.

Mregor

All legal as per rule 9-9-3.

No matter where the throw-ins are from, they're all legal. (Weird sentence)

All those throw-ins are legal from anywhere oob, even either endline. There is no team control, and thus no front court or back court status on a throw-in.

Not so fast, folks!
 

This is more complicated than people seem to think.

Let's look at the specific wording of 9-9-3:
. . . 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.

There is currently a debate on whether the words in the parenthetical are the ONLY three times that such action is permitted, since they used to be the three exceptions prior to the rewording of the rule, or if they are merely three examples of a player from the team not in control and other occasions of this are also allowed by the now more inclusive wording.
BktBallRef who is basically our backcourt guru has taken the former stance, while I have supported the latter.

Therefore, if we turn to the plays Zoochy inquired about, we get the following differing rulings:
Great post Zoochy! :)

Nevada you always get my head spinning. Good thoughts on these plays. Now if a coach could only understand it this way.

The deflection does not change the fact that A is still not in control.
As I recall, the exception in Tony's quiz referred to a player from team A jumping from frontcourt, catching the throw-in while in mid-air, then passing it to a teammate in backcourt. Big difference, is it not?

At the time between the deflection and when the player catches the ball there is no control. That is right. However, once the player catches the ball, there is both player and team control. Also, the deflection ends the throw-in, so the player who catches the ball is not catching a throw-in pass. Does that make a difference in your thinking?

That play is a backcourt violation in the NFHS, but it is a legal play in the NCAA.

no



His quiz, I believe, is based on NFHS rules. I could be wrong.

I don't see your point.

Are you on my side of this debate or BktBallRef's?

I forget the question. :)





OP #1 is not a violation. Whose side does that put me on?

Mine.:D You may want to watch where you step. The ground has been known to be shaky over here on the opposite side from where Tony is standing, especially when it comes to backcourt. :)

(1) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their front court. A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1. A2 jumps from their frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt.

VIOLATION. The rule allows an offensive player to leave his FC, catch the ball and land in his BC during a throw-in or jump ball. However, this isn't during a throw-in. The throw-in ended when B1 touched the ball.

(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.

LEGAL. The rule allows a defensive player to leave his FC, catch the ball and land in his BC.

(3) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their backcourt (Team B’s frontcourt). A1’s throw-in is intercepted by B1. B1 had jumped from their frontcourt, caught the ball in the air and lands first foot in the frontcourt, second foot in the backcourt.

LEGAL. The rule allows a defensive player to leave his FC, catch the ball and land in his BC. It makes no difference which foot lands first.

(4) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their front court (Team B’s backcourt). A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from their backcourt court, catches the ball in the air and lands first foot in the frontcourt, second foot in the backcourt.

VIOLATION. No rule allows this.

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.

Well great! Everyone agrees with me! :D

. 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?

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.

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.

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?:D

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?

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?

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 :) ):
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. :)

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

And you both would be wrong!!!:)

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

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...

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....

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!)

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.

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."

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

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[kuhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g...una/thinsp.pngn-trohl]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciationverb, -trolled, -trol‧ling, noun

–verb (used with object) <TABLE class=luna-Ent><TBODY><TR><TD class=dn vAlign=top>1.</TD><TD vAlign=top>to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent><TBODY><TR><TD class=dn vAlign=top>2.</TD><TD vAlign=top>to hold in check; curb: to control a horse; to control one's emotions; to control a ball!

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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. :o

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.

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].

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D