FIBA over and back

[Kostja]

Originally Posted by wwcfoa43

2. Player A2 catches the ball with one foot in the back court and one foot in the front court (since now the ball according to the above rules jas BOTH front and back court status).

If the ball is passed to him from the frontcourt it is a violation, if the ball is coming from the backcourt it is ok, though.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Kostja

If the ball is passed to him from the frontcourt it is a violation, if the ball is coming from the backcourt it is ok, though.

Okay, what if
a) the player who catches this pass (from the backcourt) then passes the ball back to a player in the backcourt?
b) the player who catches this pass lifts his frontcourt foot and puts it down in the backcourt?

[Jay R]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Okay, what if
a) the player who catches this pass (from the backcourt) then passes the ball back to a player in the backcourt?
b) the player who catches this pass lifts his frontcourt foot and puts it down in the backcourt?

Both BC violations in FIBA

[SmokeEater]

FIBA defines establishing Frontcourt status as having "one point" in the front court, compared to the three points from NCAA and I think Fed.

Therefore, the rules for determining when a violation has occurred can be thought of the same way in all rule sets as long as you have established court position first.

I think this makes sense! So confused.....

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

FIBA defines establishing Frontcourt status as having "one point" in the front court, compared to the three points from NCAA and I think Fed.

Therefore, the rules for determining when a violation has occurred can be thought of the same way in all rule sets as long as you have established court position first.

I think this makes sense! So confused.....

There are many differences between NCAA and FIBA regarding the "ball in the back court".

For FIBA the rule holds also during a throw-in from a spot adjacent to the front court. There is also no safety provision for a defensive player catching the ball while airborne and landing in the back court.

A player in FIBA can have both front court and back court status, for example receiving a pass having one foot in the back court and the other in the front court. In this case there is no violation if the ball comes from the back court, but now the ball has front court status. So the player cannot lift the foot in the front court or pass the ball to another player in the same position. It is not allowed to return the ball in the back court.

So far the rule makes sense, it is just different from NCAA's and Fed's.

Where the rule is very weak is regarding a dribbler who is crossing the division line. Strictly speaking, if the dribbler has both feet in the back court and bounces the ball in the front court, it would be a violation; but no officials is calling it, of course. What we look for is the global movement of the dribbler: if it is forward, no call. The same if the dribbler stops at the line for a moment and then goes forward.

The problem is when the dribbler finds a defender just over the division line and turns their back to them. It can happen that both feet go in the front court and the ball bounces in the back court. Again, if the global movement is forward, no official calls the violation.

It would be much clearer if the rule were as NCAA's. Alas, it isn't.

Ciao

[K-Bach]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

...A player in FIBA can have both front court and back court status, for example receiving a pass having one foot in the back court and the other in the front court...What we look for is the global movement of the dribbler: if it is forward, no call. The same if the dribbler stops at the line for a moment and then goes forward...

There appears to be a contradiction between having both front and back court status and the concept of global movement. Once they reach the front court with one point, they establish front court status, with allowance for global movement. I don't see where the FIBA book discusses dual status. As a concept for clarification, I see your point.