back court violation?

[kbilla]

he doesn't need both feet in the front court in that situation? so a player coming from out of bounds, same situation, as long as he gets one foot down in bounds before catching a pass, he is inbounds? like i said i didn't get a peep from anybody...

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by kbilla

he doesn't need both feet in the front court in that situation? so a player coming from out of bounds, same situation, as long as he gets one foot down in bounds before catching a pass, he is inbounds? like i said i didn't get a peep from anybody...

Correct, same as a player coming from OOB. As long as a foot is down in bounds (or in the frontcourt in the OP), and the other foot isn't touching OOB (or backcourt) then the player has established himself in bounds.

[kbilla]

glad i asked the question! do you know if this is specifically addressed anywhere? i couldn't find it....

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by kbilla

glad i asked the question! do you know if this is specifically addressed anywhere? i couldn't find it....

NFHS 4-35-1

[MJT]

Just asking to make sure everyone understands.

1. When coming from the BC to the FC, is on the line considered in the FC, so no violation?
   
2. What about in the FC and touch the line, are you considered now to be in the BC, and thus a violation?

[kbilla]

thanks bbr...i think what they are saying is that since the foot was no longer ON the line, rather in the air, and one foot was established in the fc, there is no violation..in response to your question MJT, on the line is bc no matter where you are coming from/going to whether it is a toe or a whole foot...in my situation while the last position on the floor for the back foot was on the line, that foot was in the air when the pass was received and thus no violation...

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by MJT

Just asking to make sure everyone understands.

1. When coming from the BC to the FC, is on the line considered in the FC, so no violation?
   
2. What about in the FC and touch the line, are you considered now to be in the BC, and thus a violation?

You're missing it here. On the line is considered BC. The OP should have been a no-call because the play was legal, because A2 had a foot completely in frontcourt and nothing in the backcourt when he caught the ball. His foot had been on the division line, but he lifted it before he caught the ball.

The answer to your second question is yes.

[MJT]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

You're missing it here. On the line is considered BC.

I wasn't missing it, I knew that. I asked those two questions so others would answer to clarify to all, which it now is.