![]() |
Backcourt??
Team A gets possession of the ball in their backcourt. In an outlet pass to player A1 player B intercept the pass but his momentum takes him into his backcourt. Is this a backcourt violation?
|
If the player had control of the ball while in the front court and then went into the back I would call a violation. If they tipped it and went into the backcourt to retrieve it then I got nothing.
|
Where did B gain possession? Need more info on B
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
No, don't put words in for me. I just didn't include the airborne portion in my post. Scrapper has it 100%.
|
Rule 9-9-3
If B1 jumps from his/her fromtcourt, intercepts/catches the ball while both feet are off the ground, then the denfensive player is allowed a normal landing. The order of the feet touching the court has no bearing on front court/back court status.
So say the first foot lands in B1's front court then the second foot lands in the back court. This is legal. No violation. B1 has back court status. Also the 1st foot down is the pivot foot. Now, if B1 lifts the foot that is in back court and returns it to back court. This is where the violation occurs. It would be best for B1 to either start dribbling in backcourt or pass to another player in back court to maintain back court status. Got it? |
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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... |
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 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.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
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." |
Quote:
Is this "advantage" available to either team following a try? |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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.... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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). |
Quote:
I know the throw-in is over when touched on the court, but I mentioned "team control" because there can't be a violation when team control was never established. I threw this out before a college game...same exact scenario as Snaqwells stated with the tip....and we know in college there is team control on a thrown in....but the exception of the backcourt violation on a thrown in takes precedence there as well, according to the officials I was with that evening....meaning no violation on a tip by A into the backcourt which is then recovered by A. |
Quote:
Since the touch ends the throw-in, some people claim that the exception is no long valid. |
Quote:
What if A1 (inbounding the ball) throws it toward A2 in As backcourt. B1, playing defense, bats the ball into As frontcourt and it is retrieved by B2....according to the other posts, no violation on B because they aren't penalized for their spot on the floor. If the reverse happens, inbounds to A2 in As frontcourt and batted to As backcourt and A2 retrieves? Some are saying that's a violation? These scenarios don't involve airborne players like this post started out but both are making point about how I think the inbounding portion of this rule means until their is team control....which maybe should be clarified in the rules/case book. |
Quote:
Thanks |
Quote:
Adam |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Once the ball is tipped, the throwin is over, so the exception no longer applies. Therefore, once A2 catches the ball, he has established player control. If his last position was in the FC, then that's where the ball is. By landing in the BC, he commits a violation. Quote:
|
OK, let me try and get this straight..we're back to airborne.
A1 inbounds to A2 who is in the frontcourt....A2 tips the ball toward the backcourt and A3 jumps from the frontcourt, catches the ball while airborne and lands in the backcourt....Since the inbound ended when A2 tipped the ball in the frontcourt then the ball has frontcourt status and A3 violated when he caught the ball as an airborne player and landed in the backcourt. I'm either way off or it still seems easy to me Whew.... 1. This will very seldom happen....but if it does... 2. I still have no team control (in my mind) on a tip, so I don't have a violation 3. I also have no status for the ball on a tip on an inbounds - FC or BC (IMHO) 4. This is only applying to a tip by the inbounding team also, right? and no, I'm not trying to be sarcastic or difficult :) |
That's how the argument goes, yes. And, to clarify, this should be a violation on the "defense" if it's a violation on the "offense," because there's no defined "defense" if there's no team control.
Also, if A2 gains control of the ball and throws it before landing, then you'd have an easy violation on A3 once he lands in the BC. Likewise, if A2 gains control airborne under the allowance, he's allowed to land but he cannot pass to any teammate in the backcourt until he lands. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You are saying the above is true or "true in the eyes of those who believe the provision ends when the throw in ends"...??? At least I now understand what you mean regarding the provisions ending... |
Regarding the first part of my post, it's true in the eyes of those who believe the provision ends when the throwin ends. It's not my opinion, though, so I could be presenting it incorrectly. Logically, however, I see their reasoning so I think I've got it right even though I disagree.
Regarding the second paragraph of my post (#32), that part is true by rule and not really disputed. |
Quote:
1) TC 2) Ball in FC 3) A last to toouch before ball goes to BC 4) A first to touch after ball goes to BC Exceptions for airborne players on defense, jump ball, throw-in. Quote:
|
Quote:
I guess it's a topic that should be discussed and addressed in a case book play. |
Quote:
Same with 4.12.6 - if the ball is tipped in the frontcourt, but recovered in the backcourt, no violation because there was no team control. I think I'm up in the air still. I may e-mail this one in to my interpreter for guidance. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I like this post and my interpretation is a tip doesn't change the provision for an airborne player being able to obtain a throw-in, tipped or not and land in the backcourt without a violation..... If we did it with the other scenarios ...jump ball and a defensive player....a tip doesn't establish team control so why would it here? EX - A jump ball tapped by A1 is then tipped by A2 who is in As frontcourt and caught by airborne A3 (jumped from his frontcourt, catches in midair and lands in his backcourt)....no team control, the jumpball is over but no team control yet so no BC violation. Anyone disagree? There is frontcourt location in the above but no team control. |
Quote:
(And, your other post -- A1 inbounds to A2 who tips the ball to airborne A3 who gathers in the FC and lands in the BC -- is also a violation.) |
Quote:
So you think when an inbounds is over because of a tipped ball (by either an offensive or defensive player in that teams frontcourt) and if a player jumps from his frontcourt, catches the ball in the air (gets player/team control) and he lands in his backcourt it is a violation...right? Because you have both Frontcourt ball location and frontcourt player location! I have to agree here I guess.... Keys are: 1. tip in frontcourt that establishes ball location. 2. airborne player jumping from his frontcourt and securing ball in the air to establish team/player control. 3. landing in the backcourt with the ball or throwing it to another teammate in the backcourt.. OK then... |
Quote:
Would you have to determine if the second tip to the airborne player is a controlled tip? Thus establishing the TC portion of the requirements. I am looking at it as more of an attempt to catch the ball but having it deflect (tip) off the fingers for no control. So many posts saying so many things, I thought had this cold but now ....:confused: |
Quote:
I have to admit, I've done a 180 on this, twice. 1. tip in front court establishes ball location (by anyone in frontcourt) 2. A jump by a player from his frontcourt means he last had frontcourt location. 3. by catching the ball while airborne he has both frontcourt ball status and frontcourt player status 4. by landing or throwning the ball into the backcourt which is first touched by a teammate .... a violation has been committed. I don't think it matter if the first tip was incidental or intentional on this interpretation...just that it occurred in the frontcourt a touch by the airborne player into the backcourt, if deemed unintentional would mean no player/team control and he or teammate could retrieve with no violation being committed. Without the tip a leap from the frontcourt and catch in midair because you don't have frontcourt status with the ball... |
Quote:
If you really want to get into detail on this, take some time and go read this entire thread. BktBallRef, Zoochy, and I discuss these plays with great precision. I hope that it helps you. http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=29471 |
Quote:
A1 has the ball for a throwin. Passes the ball and it's tipped (doesn't matter by whom). B1 then jumps from his FC and catches the ball before landing in his BC. Would this be a violation? |
Okay, here's the applicable rule as it pertains to this play:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Rules citation? |
Quote:
|
JR, the team defending the throw-in is clearly on defense.
SoCal, it is not during a throw-in. The ball was tipped and that ended the throw-in under NFHS rules. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Rules citation? |
My point exactly, JR.
|
Where does it say that team control is necessary for there to be a defensive team. To throw that ball back into JR's court, please cite a rule for me that says that.
I think that it is quite obvious that if one team is making a throw-in, the opponent is playing defense. |
If we're going to parse the wording of the rule to the point where we insist that the parenthetical list is all-inclusive, then "defense" needs to be defined as well. The only rule definition I can find is by defining it as the opposite of the team in control; which won't exist during a throwin.
Personally, I think the parenthetical list is meant as a few examples rather than a full and all-inclusive list of times when the allowance is in effect. |
Quote:
2) Obvious to who? You? Somehow methinks that doesn't make it so. |
Quote:
Well I can demonstrate using what is written in the rules book that your "common sense" isn't correct. There are two statements in the Fundamentals which mention defense. In the first, there is no team control because the try has been released, which we know ends team control. However, the continuous motion interval is the topic of the second, which we know occurs while the player is still holding the ball and thus has team control. Basketball Rules Fundamentals 7. The only infractions for which points are awarded are goaltending by the defense or basket interference at the opponent's basket. 17. “Continuous motion” applies both to tries and taps for field goals and free throws, but it has no significance unless there is a foul by the defense during the interval which begins when the habitual trying or tapping movement starts and ends when the ball is clearly in flight. Therefore, defense can occur both while there is and also while there is not team control. Q.E.D. http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...ner_neener.gif |
Quote:
Seems to me there needs to be a clarification on this somewhere.....I see both sides of the story and am still "up in the air" on this one....Am going to check and see on this with our local rules guy soon. ALso going to send to our state association...one of our gals with the state knows Mary Struckoff well and hope I can get clafication on these. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't doubt that... |
Quote:
|
We all seem to agree that the exception for back court needs to be clarified. The one thing that is a given in the Rule 9-9-3 (Back Court Exception). The player has to jump from Front Court and catch the ball in the air. Mark Dexter made the statement, “Therefore, no violation - no matter where the player takes off from and lands.” This is incorrect. It does matter where the player takes off from. IT must be from the Front Court.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
This argument requires logic and critical thinking skills, Dan. I'll find a first first-grader with a crayon to connect the dots for you, if you are having trouble following the points.
|
Quote:
I've already found one but sadly you're not doing a very good job. |
Quote:
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:03am. |