backcourt

[oc]

I've seen posted a few times a list of 4 or 5 requirements for a backcourt violation. Can someone repost it here please?

My best memory:
team control frontcourt
last touched by offense in frontcourt
ball goes to backcourt
first touched by offense.


How about this scenario:
-Team A control frontcourt
-A1 last touches ball in frontcourt
-ball goes backcourt
-ball comes back to frontcourt (backspin, hits official, ...) without touching any player. (ball clearly has frontcourt status)
A1 touches the ball.

Backcourt violation?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by oc

I've seen posted a few times a list of 4 or 5 requirements for a backcourt violation. Can someone repost it here please?

My best memory:
team control frontcourt
last touched by offense in frontcourt
ball goes to backcourt
first touched by offense.

Technically, the wording is

1) team control
2)front court status
3) team A last to touch before ball achieves backcourt status
4)team A first to touch after ball achieves backcourt status

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by oc

How about this scenario:
-Team A control frontcourt
-A1 last touches ball in frontcourt
-ball goes backcourt
-ball comes back to frontcourt (backspin, hits official, ...) without touching any player. (ball clearly has frontcourt status)
A1 touches the ball.

Backcourt violation?

If you evaluate this play with the 4 criteria rainmaker posted for ya, you will conclude that this is a backcourt violation.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If you evaluate this play with the 4 criteria rainmaker posted for ya, you will conclude that this is a backcourt violation.

Why??? A1 never touched the ball while it had backcourt status, so how could it be called a backcourt violation?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Why??? A1 never touched the ball while it had backcourt status, so how could it be called a backcourt violation?

Does it matter where A1 touches the ball after it went into the back court, as per R9-1?

If A1, who was completely in the front-court, dribbled on the center line, and the dribble then hit A1 who was still completely in the front court, is that legal also?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Does it matter where A1 touches the ball after it went into the back court, as per R9-1?

If A1, who was completely in the front-court, dribbled on the center line, and the dribble then hit A1 who was still completely in the front court, is that legal also?

Good point. Guess the season is fast approaching and it is time to start doing some reading.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Good point. Guess the season is fast approaching and it is time to start doing some reading.

Know what? Some of these calls are a heckuva lot easier when you can actually see them in a game rather than read about them. Seriously. It's like the jump stop- pivot- travel questions that they throw on the exam every year. For me, it's easier to call those in a game than try to figure out the exam question.

You'd never miss that backcourt one in real life.

[oc]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Does it matter where A1 touches the ball after it went into the back court, as per R9-1?

If A1, who was completely in the front-court, dribbled on the center line, and the dribble then hit A1 who was still completely in the front court, is that legal also?

No, but in my situation the ball clearly gets frontcourt status before being touched. Although it appeared to meet the standards for backcourt according to the letter of the rule-that answer didn't feel right to me. I am not going to argue though. If you, Chuck, and BktBallRef all think it is a violation I will just sit back eat some popcorn and let someone else hash out a losing battle.

[Nevadaref]

In reply to JR:

Originally Posted by oc

No, but in my situation the ball clearly gets frontcourt status before being touched. Although it appeared to meet the standards for backcourt according to the letter of the rule-that answer didn't feel right to me. I am not going to argue though. If you, Chuck, and BktBallRef all think it is a violation I will just sit back eat some popcorn and let someone else hash out a losing battle.

Sure, fine, just forget about the guy who gave the original answer!

[kycat1]

I just now finally got a respnse from Mary Struckoff from NFHS Rules committee about this play that was strongly argued in the original post. Many of you said I was completely wrong and we agreed to disagree. I have copied Mary's reply and her interpretation of this ruling. please see below!

Sorry for the delay and thanks for your patience.

Actually, I have given this much thought and have been thinking about it for some time now.

I do believe the intent of the rule is that where the ball is touched is important. If it comes back to the frontcourt after touching the official in the backcourt and the offensive player regains control in the frontcourt, both have frontcourt status and no violation has occurred. They just got lucky that the ball hit the official and came back....that can be true of an errant pass about to fly out of bounds and hits the official and stays inbounds.....In order to be a violation, it must be touched in the backcourt.

I will run this by the committee in April to make sure they agree and see if they want to make any editorial changes to the rule itself.

Mary

Mary Struckhoff
NFHS Assistant Director
Basketball Rules Editor/National Interpreter

If it happens this way, I will NOT call an over and back violation!

[Raymond]

Though I personally like Ms. Struckhoff's interpretation, it is contridicted by the wording in FED rule 9-9.1:

A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

The current FED wording makes no mention of the play becoming legal if the balls itself regains f/c status.

I myself would like to see the rule changed so that the play is legal. But until then I would have to rule it a b/c violation.

There is really no debate for the NCAA interpretation b/c the A.R. specifically cites this play as a violation.

[HawkeyeCubP]

The reason this is illegal is because the violating team would be using more of the court while in team control in their front court than is permissible by the (intended) rules. The best example of this is the trapped player in the FC near the division line reaching back and bounce-passing the ball so that it touches the backcourt or the (division line) on its way to another A player in the frontcourt. If you're in favor of this being legal, then logically, you should be in favor of having the division line be in effect only as a temporary boundary, relative only to ten-second backcourt rules - after which, by the logic of such a play being legal, (and until the team going the other direction gains team control,) the division line would essentially disappear for purposes of rule applications.

Just my opinion, of course.

Edited to include: This would give a new meaning to the term "spread offense."

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by kycat1

I just now finally got a respnse from Mary Struckoff from NFHS Rules committee about this play that was strongly argued in the original post. Many of you said I was completely wrong and we agreed to disagree. I have copied Mary's reply and her interpretation of this ruling. please see below!

Sorry for the delay and thanks for your patience.

Actually, I have given this much thought and have been thinking about it for some time now.

I do believe the intent of the rule is that where the ball is touched is important. If it comes back to the frontcourt after touching the official in the backcourt and the offensive player regains control in the frontcourt, both have frontcourt status and no violation has occurred. They just got lucky that the ball hit the official and came back....that can be true of an errant pass about to fly out of bounds and hits the official and stays inbounds.....In order to be a violation, it must be touched in the backcourt.

I will run this by the committee in April to make sure they agree and see if they want to make any editorial changes to the rule itself.

Mary

Mary Struckhoff
NFHS Assistant Director
Basketball Rules Editor/National Interpreter

If it happens this way, I will NOT call an over and back violation!

1) The difference between the "back court" play and the "OOB" that Mary uses is that the ball went to the backcourt but was only "about to fly OOB". If, in the original play, the ball was "about to go the the back court" but was prevented from doing so by the official, I agree, there's no violation. Or, if in Mary's play, the ball hit the official who was OOB, the ball would be OOB.

2) It seems to be that a ball from the FC that goes BC, hits an official and returns to the FC should be treated the same as a ball that is in the BC, goes to the FC, hits an official and returns to the BC. 4.4.4B is the second (BC-FC-BC) play, and it's a violation. So, I think the first play (FC-BC-FC) should also be a violation.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

2) It seems to be that a ball from the FC that goes BC, hits an official and returns to the FC should be treated the same as a ball that is in the BC, goes to the FC, hits an official and returns to the BC. 4.4.4B is the second (BC-FC-BC) play, and it's a violation. So, I think the first play (FC-BC-FC) should also be a violation.

Excellent analysis. To have a mirror play completely different would make no sense at all. To agree with Ms. Struckoff's tenative ruling above, 4.4.4B would have to be ruled legal also.

[Nevadaref]

kycat1, Thanks for following up on this issue. I admire your tenacity. I disagree with your rule interp, but that's not the point. It looks like a positive will come out of this in the manner of a clarification.

I can only hope that those on the NFHS committee can talk some sense into Ms. Struckhoff. The NFHS should not change its current rule, nor should it deviate from the NCAA ruling on this play. To do so would only make the HS game more confusing.

I sincerely hope that the NFHS just issues a clarification or adds a new case book play that is identical to the NCAA AR.