Backcourt??

[RushmoreRef]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

9-9-3 B1, while airborne, intercepts a pass from A1 to A2. B1 had jumped from B's frontcourt and landed in B's backcourt. This is not a violation. The provision is provided only to the defensive team and only to the player who secures control while airborne.

Whoa, then I've blown this call...I'm waiting for a few more posts on this one and a chance to go and read 9-9-3 or whatever rule # it is...Can one of you with a rule book post the whole rule...this is not referring to an inbounds pass is it.....like I said, I have backcourt violation here and a hard time understanding why we're giving B an advantage that the offensive team doesn't get....

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by RushmoreRef

Whoa, then I've blown this call...I'm waiting for a few more posts on this one and a chance to go and read 9-9-3 or whatever rule # it is...Can one of you with a rule book post the whole rule...this is not referring to an inbounds pass is it.....like I said, I have backcourt violation here and a hard time understanding why we're giving B an advantage that the offensive team doesn't get....

We give B an advantage because they can't control where the ball is.

An excpetion is granted on a jump ball, and inbounds pass, and to the defense intercepting a pass -- an airborne player is allowed to jump from the FC, catch the ball and land in the BC without this being a violation.

[RushmoreRef]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

We give B an advantage because they can't control where the ball is.

An excpetion is granted on a jump ball, and inbounds pass, and to the defense intercepting a pass -- an airborne player is allowed to jump from the FC, catch the ball and land in the BC without this being a violation.

I got the first two but didn't realize the third....what about the landing....if one touches in the front court has he established front-court position and if the other comes down in the backcourt then it's a violation??? I know if A does that on an inbounds its a violation so it should be on B in this sit....

Personally I don't like this rule (probably because I didn't know it) Don't think there should be an exception....if this is a rule then give the O the benefit of the doubt on a tipped ball that goes into the backcourt...I have the casebook in front of me but it doesn't cover this rule there..

Again, can someone post the actual rulebook explanation...if they have it...

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by RushmoreRef

I got the first two but didn't realize the third....what about the landing....if one touches in the front court has he established front-court position and if the other comes down in the backcourt then it's a violation???

No. As someone else already posted, the player is allowed a "normal" landing, even if the first foot touches in the frontcourt and the second touches in the backcourt.

I know if A does that on an inbounds its a violation.

I don't think that you really know that.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by RushmoreRef

I got the first two but didn't realize the third....what about the landing....if one touches in the front court has he established front-court position and if the other comes down in the backcourt then it's a violation??? I know if A does that on an inbounds its a violation so it should be on B in this sit

I think not. Check out 9-9-3.

Don't think there should be an exception....if this is a rule then give the O the benefit of the doubt on a tipped ball that goes into the backcourt...I have the casebook in front of me but it doesn't cover this rule there..

Again, can someone post the actual rulebook explanation...if they have it...

The "exception" is there because of the NFHS definition of team control. B can't have team control, and A doesn't have control during a throw-in.


9-9-3:
"A player from the team not in control (defensive player or during a jump ball or throw-in) may legally jump from his/her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt."

[RushmoreRef]

Great I learned something...now with the inbounds play. It all depends on the status of the player (airborne or not airborne)....got it now...if airborne they can land normally, if not airborne then the court status is just like anything else, in and out of bounds, behind the arc or in front etc....

Got it...thanks.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by RushmoreRef

Great I learned something...now with the inbounds play. It all depends on the status of the player (airborne or not airborne)....got it now...if airborne they can land normally, if not airborne then the court status is just like anything else, in and out of bounds, behind the arc or in front etc....

Got it...thanks.

Think of it this way. FC and BC are only in existence when there's team control. When a defensive player is airborne, and catches the ball, he didn't have team control when he left the floor, so there wasn't any FC when he left the floor, so he's just establishing team control when he lands. He hasn't carried the ball from FC to BC, because he didn't have FC status when he left the floor.

And you can apply the same logic to the throw-in. No team control until the player lands, so no FC or BC status until the player lands.

[Adam]

This "advantage" is provided to players whose team is not in control; during a throwin, on defense, and during a jump ball. A player whose team is not in control may jump from his front court, secure the ball while airborne, and land normally in the backcourt.

[Adam]

I don't have the rule book with me, but the player is permitted a normal landing. IOW, the first foot may touch in the FC and the 2nd in the BC and still be a legal play.

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This "advantage" is provided to players whose team is not in control; during a throwin, on defense, and during a jump ball. A player whose team is not in control may jump from his front court, secure the ball while airborne, and land normally in the backcourt.

I am not addressing you specifically Mr. Snaqwells, just using your post.

Is this "advantage" available to either team following a try?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by SamIAm

I am not addressing you specifically Mr. Snaqwells, just using your post.

Is this "advantage" available to either team following a try?

This is a point of contention. I'm going off memory here, but the rule states, "a player whose team is not in control (on defense, during a throwin, or during a jump ball)…may jump and…."

Whether this applies to a player on a shot depends on whether you think this freedom extends after the throwin ends but before player/team control is established. The debate is whether the examples in parentheses are all inclusive, or meant as mere examples of when a player's team isn't in control.
Example: A1 releases the pass on a throwin, which is then tipped into the air by A2. A3 jumps from the FC to secure the ball and lands in the BC. Here is where some officials differ on the interepretation of this rule.

[RushmoreRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This is a point of contention. I'm going off memory here, but the rule states, "a player whose team is not in control (on defense, during a throwin, or during a jump ball)…may jump and…."

Whether this applies to a player on a shot depends on whether you think this freedom extends after the throwin ends but before player/team control is established. The debate is whether the examples in parentheses are all inclusive, or meant as mere examples of when a player's team isn't in control.
Example: A1 releases the pass on a throwin, which is then tipped into the air by A2. A3 jumps from the FC to secure the ball and lands in the BC. Here is where some officials differ on the interepretation of this rule.

I'd have to say that a tip doesn't mean team control and is therefore not a violation....we discussed this play at length with 6 officials after a tournament game and we came to that consensus....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RushmoreRef

I'd have to say that a tip doesn't mean team control and is therefore not a violation....we discussed this play at length with 6 officials after a tournament game and we came to that consensus....

No one argues that team control exists at this point. The debate is whether the "exception" continues once the throwin is over. IOW, is the exception granted every time there's no team control, or only during the three specified examples.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No one argues that team control exists at this point. The debate is whether the "exception" continues once the throwin is over. IOW, is the exception granted every time there's no team control, or only during the three specified examples.

Snaqwells - you're right that the throw-in has ended in this situation. However, no team control has been established. Therefore, no violation - no matter where the player takes off from and lands.

Think of what happens on a jump ball. Just because a jumper touches the ball doesn't mean that the backcourt exception has ended. Nor does it end when a non-jumper grabs the ball, as long as he's in the air (even though the jump ball would end at that point).