backcourt violation?
 

team A has the ball in the backcourt, he passes the ball and a player from team A jumps from the frontcourt and catches the ball in the air and then lands in the backcourt. is this is a backcourt violation?

Yes.<i></i>

Also...
A player from Team A has the ball in his frontcourt. He passes the ball and a player from team A jumps from the backcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in the frontcourt.....tweet! Violation :).

The location of an airborne player with reference to the backcourt is the same as at the time such player was last in contact with the floor.

I saw this exact thing happen tonight.

You could tweet that even before he lands.

What? You're not gonna tell him he's wise beyond his years? :rolleyes:

What about if its the inbound play to start the 2d quarter? Since its an inbounds play, does A2 have front court status before the ball is inbounded or not?

That was taken for granted because of his screen name...

A2 (assuming that A2 is not the inbounder) has either FC or BC status before the throwin. But, the ball doesn't have that status, and there's no team control yet, and there's the "exception" for an airborne player receiving the inbounds pass ... and since I don't know exactly which play you're talking about, I can't give a correct ruling.

Throw-in question
 

I believe this was discussed on a recent thread. If so, could someone kindly post the link...or recap this for me. (Yes, you could post it rudely also.)

On a throw-in, A1 is out of bounds and throws to A2 who is airborne having jumped from the front court. While airborne, A2 passes the ball to A3 who is in the backcourt.
Violation NFHS?
Violation NCAA?

NFHS: Violation
NCAA: Legal (so I've been told, and I accept, but I have a hard time "proving" it in the book)

Thanks Bob.

I've been told / read the same for NCAA, but I can't figure it out myself. Rule 9-12.8 says on a throw-in or jump ball an airborne player who secures control of the ball in the front court shall not be permitted to cause the ball to go into the back court. The only exception listed is the defensive player going airborne...intercepting a pass...and landing in the back court. (Of course 9-12.7 says an offensive player can secure and land in the back court off of a throw-in or jump ball.)

But I can't see how the scenario of A1 out of bounds...throwing it in to airborne A2 (from the front court)...who throws it to A3 in the back court is legal.

I had a play last night. Start of the quarter. A1 passes the ball to A2 who jumps from the front court, catches the ball while in the air and lands in the back court. I blew the whistle and called a backcourt violation thinking that A2 had already established his position in the front court when he caught the ball and had not established his posiition in the back court (which would've been legal if he was already there).

An assignor that I work for happened to be at the game and came into the locker room afterwards and said I should've not called that, that it was a legal play as it was an inbounds play. I had enough sense not to debate it, but I've been thinking about it today at work and thought I 'd run it by the best source other than the books themselves....you folks.

AS discussed previously in this thread, it's not a violation. It's one of the specific "exceptions" (now in the rule) in the backcouort violation section of rule 9.

Thanks Bob.

That specific exception is illustrated in the comic book also.

I think FC/BC status does not matter on throw-in. (The in-bounds play devised by the coach has little to do with the sitch.) The concern would be whether the throw-in has ended. If throw-in has ended, the BC/FC status matters, unless on defense.

(Which is what was posted previously, but I hadn't yet read)


edited for grammar and hasty typing.

Slight change - new ruling?
 

A1 inbounds to A2 who is in the air, last having touched the frontcourt, but instead of catching and throwing to A3 (A3 is in the backcourt) before touching the backcourt, bats or tips (without catching or palming) to A3 in the backcourt. Still a violation?

(I think I know the answer...)

Don't forget that player/team control needs to get established also.

Yes, this is a violation.

Are you sure?

Because...?:)

I blame (insert political figure here) and retract my statement.

:D <i></i>

No, it's not. No team control is established.

4-12 ART. 2 . . . A team is in control of the ball when a player of the team is in control, while a live ball is being passed among teammates and during an interrupted dribble.

4-31 PASS
A pass is movement of the ball caused by a player who throws, bats, or rolls the ball to another player.

Sit. 4.12.6 gets close to addressing this, but not quite, IMO, because it is talking about a "touch," as opposed to an intentional redirecting of the ball toward a teammate (bat = pass). So I'm inclined to think that this is a pass, and that constitutes team control.

Thoughts?

Blame Canada!!

http://www.snn-rdr.ca/snn/old/march2...ame_canada.gif

We agree that this is a violation in NFHS.
For NCAA, I happen to believe from reading the rules myself that it is also a violation, however, on page 23 of the November issue of Referee Magazine there is an article written by associate editor Ken Koester entitled "Accepting the Backcourt Exceptions." In this article he includes, "Play 1: A3, standing in the frontcourt, jumps into the air and (a) secures possession of a jump ball, or (b) receives a throw-in from A2. A3, still airborne, passes the ball to A4 in the backcourt, who catches the ball there. Ruling 1: In NFHS, backcourt violation in both cases. In NCAA, legal plays."
In addition to that he writes it is NOT a violation in NCAA men's and women's games when a team B player jumps from the frontcourt and gains possession of a ball that had not been in team B's control and then (while still airborne) passes to a teammate in the backcourt. He provides the following rule citations: 4-28, 9-11-1 A.R. 21, 9-11-6.
For anyone who tries to look those up, good luck, as you will find that 9-11 is "Shot Clock" and 9-12 is "Ball in Back Court," but even assuming he meant 12 instead of 11 (or that it was 11 in an older version of the NCAA rules, which I believe it was) his A.R. reference doesn't make sense.

I could not find his officiating bio either in the magazine or on the website, so I don't know if he is a current D1 ref or not.

Personally, I think that he is incorrect due to the following NCAA rules:

9-12-8.

9-12-6.

9-12-6 says nothing about being allowed to make a pass to a teammate in the backcourt.

Perhaps he is correct and I am not. I have made mistakes before. Maybe someone will go to the RM website and email him about this.

NCAA 9-12-5.

Why would this be legal under NCAA rules? If anything, it's harder to support as being legal because team control exists during the throw-in (unlike NFHS).

My guess (and it's just a guess) is that this used to be legal (and clear) in the NCAA rule book. When they had that massive rewrite back in '00 (or so), the clarity of the rule was lost.

Someone who is closer to the NCAA rules committee / editor would have to ask if the rule still exists.

What's your NFHS ruling, Nevada? Do you agree that this batting equates passing, which equates team control, which results in a violation?

A ball that is batted remains in team control of the team last in control. If team control has not been established yet, a batted ball has no team control. There is no team control on a throw-in. Team control is established when a player gains control of the ball. Batting a ball that is in control of neither team does not establish team control.

Um...you may want to read NFHS case book play 4.12.6 Also see case book play 4.19.7SitC which states that there's no team control following a deflected ball during a throw-in.

You're wrong.

If I bat a ball to a teammate, this doesn't establish team control? A bat is a pass.

And where is "establishing" team control covered in the rule book? It simply states what player control is, and what team control is. I can't find anything that says anything to the effect of "there cannot be team control until there is player control," although it seems logical.

4-12-2 A team is in control of the ball when a player of the team is in control, while a live ball is being passed among teammates and during an interrupted dribble. I read this as meaning if a player passes the ball to a teammate, regardless of what was happening previously, that there is team control.

I could be completely wrong, as I often am on here, but I think the case for team control in this situation is stronger that the case for no team control, by NFHS rules.

I see what you're saying here Jurassic. I mentioned this case play earlier in the thread, but I wasn't thinking it applied to an intentional bat from a player to a teammate. I read the case play as A2 is trying to catch/deflecting the ball, not batting it to a teammate.

But since the case play doesn't specify what type of "touching" is going on, I guess I'll defer.

And to go off-track, doesn't the language of 4.12.6 and 4.19.7.D contradict each other? I remember a thread from not too long ago where Nevada and I think you and others were debating the whole "when does the throw-in end" deal, regarding to the throw-in being touched/deflected. 4.12.6 says the throw-in ended when the player touched the ball, but 4.19.7.D implies that even after the touch, the throw-in is still occuring during the foul that follows the touch.

I've Got It!
 

To use my own logic, touching precedes batting, so the the two case book situations are completely applicable.

Thank you.

If your interpretation were correct, Hawkeye, then there would be team control during a throw-in as soon as the inbounder released the throw-in pass. But that dog don't hunt.

My thought (with regard to NFHS): Play control cannot be established by a bat, so team control cannot be established by a bat. No team control = no backcourt violation.

No there wouldn't, because 4-12-6 says that there's no team control during a throw-in. 4-12-6 is a qualifier for 4-12-2.

My (albeit incorrect) interpretation, cleared up by the two case plays earlier mentioned, was based on the rule set as a whole - I wasn't trying to pick and choose which rules to base it off of from the book.

Why did you bring the book that you know I don't like to be read out of up for?

I know Snaq, and I think you're right. My reasoning around that at the time was that the book doesn't ever say, verbatim, that there must be player control before there can be team control.

Anyhoo, I'm all straight on it now.

Now my brain hurts.

I'm lost. You don't like to be read the NFHS Rule Book?

No. It's improper grammar to end a sentence with a preposition. Rainmaker was just ending a sentence with four of them.

Where's that rule at?

:mad: :mad: :mad:

There should be white smoke coming out the chimney soon. I have the feeling that you're well on the way to being appointed as the successor to the l'il sh!t that pissed off literally thousands of posters here before deservedly disappearing into eternal oblivion. I'm talking, of course, about the original, one-and-only Mr. Obnoxious Grammar Guy.

Of course, that shouldn't be confused with Mr. Obnoxious Spelling Guy, under which <i>nom de plume</i> the l'il sh!t also moonlighted. That title has to be earned also.