what's the call??

[cmathews]

that might well indeed be why I thought that LOL

[JoeTheRef]

This was taught to me early on regarding backcourt. It's called the 3A(AAA) method. IF you don't have the any one of the 3-As then it can't be backcourt.

Did A have position in the front court? Was A the last to touch it in the front court? Was A the first to touch it in the backcourt?

In this case you're missing 2 of the 3. Team A never had front court status, nor were they the last one to touch it in the front court.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Team A did not gain control in the front court. The ball is hit off a Team B player in the FC and caroms into the back court. I see where you are going with this, but the point is Team A had nothing to do with the status of ball in the FC. The status of the ball is a huge part of any BC violation. Team control would not be a factor if they never had status in the FC. I think we are playing around with semantics, but from my point of view you have at least had to control the ball in the FC which did not take place in this play to even have a FC.

I realize some may call it this way, but it's not how the rule reads from what I can tell. Consider this scenario:
A1 passes the ball from his BC towards A2 in the FC. B1 leaps and tips the ball towards A3's leg (A3 is standing in the FC), where it bounces into the BC and is recovered by A1.
This has all the legal criteria for a BC violation. A had team control. The ball established FC position upon B1's tip, but team control did not end. A3 was the last to touch the ball in As front court. A1 was the first to touch it in the BC. It's a violation and no A player ever had player control in the FC.
Or, we could make this simpler. Skip B1 and we'll have A2 (standing in the FC) muff A1's pass (from the BC) back to the BC where A1 recovers it. Again, a violation without having player control established in the FC.

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I realize some may call it this way, but it's not how the rule reads from what I can tell. Consider this scenario:
A1 passes the ball from his BC towards A2 in the FC. B1 leaps and tips the ball towards A3's leg (A3 is standing in the FC), where it bounces into the BC and is recovered by A1.
This has all the legal criteria for a BC violation. A had team control. The ball established FC position upon B1's tip, but team control did not end. A3 was the last to touch the ball in As front court. A1 was the first to touch it in the BC. It's a violation and no A player ever had player control in the FC.
Or, we could make this simpler. Skip B1 and we'll have A2 (standing in the FC) muff A1's pass (from the BC) back to the BC where A1 recovers it. Again, a violation without having player control established in the FC.

I agree with this and would call the backcourt violation. This is a case play. 9.9.1 Situation C in an old caseplay book that I have.