The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Backcourt?? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/32953-backcourt.html)

Hugh Wed Mar 21, 2007 08:06am

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?

SmokeEater Wed Mar 21, 2007 08:13am

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.

cmckenna Wed Mar 21, 2007 08:13am

Where did B gain possession? Need more info on B

Scrapper1 Wed Mar 21, 2007 08:13am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh
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 a defensive player jumps from his own frontcourt and intercepts the ball while airborne, he is allowed to land in his backcourt and there is no backcourt violation.

BktBallRef Wed Mar 21, 2007 08:15am

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeEater
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.

So if he caught the ball while airborne and then landed in the BC, you have a violation? :rolleyes:

SmokeEater Wed Mar 21, 2007 08:17am

No, don't put words in for me. I just didn't include the airborne portion in my post. Scrapper has it 100%.

Zoochy Wed Mar 21, 2007 08:20am

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?

Indianaref Wed Mar 21, 2007 08:59am

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.

RushmoreRef Wed Mar 21, 2007 09:22am

Quote:

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....:confused: :confused:

bob jenkins Wed Mar 21, 2007 09:29am

Quote:

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....:confused: :confused:

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 Wed Mar 21, 2007 09:35am

Quote:

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...

Adam Wed Mar 21, 2007 09:35am

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 Wed Mar 21, 2007 09:37am

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.

Scrapper1 Wed Mar 21, 2007 09:39am

Quote:

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.

Quote:

I know if A does that on an inbounds its a violation.
I don't think that you really know that. ;)

Mark Dexter Wed Mar 21, 2007 09:40am

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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."

SamIAm Wed Mar 21, 2007 09:45am

Quote:

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?

RushmoreRef Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:01am

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 Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:33am

Quote:

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 Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:12am

Quote:

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 Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:15am

Quote:

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....

BktBallRef Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:20am

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeEater
No, don't put words in for me. I just didn't include the airborne portion in my post. Scrapper has it 100%.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I just asked you a question. You wrote, "If the player had control of the ball while in the front court and then went into the back I would call a violation." You say nothing about him being airborne or on the floor, so we're just supposed to assume you know the difference?

Adam Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:42am

Quote:

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 Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:59am

Quote:

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).

RushmoreRef Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter
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).


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.

Scrapper1 Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RushmoreRef
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.

The problem with that is that the rule says there's no violation for a player whose team is not in control during a jump ball or throw-in.

Since the touch ends the throw-in, some people claim that the exception is no long valid.

RushmoreRef Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrapper1
The problem with that is that the rule says there's no violation for a player whose team is not in control during a jump ball or throw-in.

Since the touch ends the throw-in, some people claim that the exception is no long valid.

I understand what you're saying but how are you going to call a backcourt violation if there is no team-control established. What about below...

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.

SmokeEater Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BktBallRef
I didn't put words in your mouth. I just asked you a question. You wrote, "If the player had control of the ball while in the front court and then went into the back I would call a violation." You say nothing about him being airborne or on the floor, so we're just supposed to assume you know the difference?

Agreed you didn't. My apology. Your sarcasm and insinuation that I am a complete dolt who knows nothing about the game or officiating is duely noted. If I have given any indication in previous posts that I deserved this then so be it. I don't post false information or missleading interpretations, and as I noted above did not clarify my OP very well.

Thanks

Adam Wed Mar 21, 2007 01:00pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter
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).

Mark, I agree with you. I'm only saying there is a significantly sized group of officials who don't. The argument is that the parenthetical items in the allowance are all-inclusive, and that the allowance no longer applies once the throwin or jump ball is over, even if player control has not yet been established.
Adam

RushmoreRef Wed Mar 21, 2007 01:04pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells
Mark, I agree with you. I'm only saying there is a significantly sized group of officials who don't. The argument is that the parenthetical items in the allowance are all-inclusive, and that the allowance no longer applies once the throwin or jump ball is over, even if player control has not yet been established.
Adam

So what do you make of #26......I think you and I and other on here say no violation....does the other group feel that both are violations...???

Adam Wed Mar 21, 2007 01:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RushmoreRef
I understand what you're saying but how are you going to call a backcourt violation if there is no team-control established. What about below...

The argument goes:
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:

Originally Posted by RushmoreRef
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?

This isn't a violation because team/player control was not established until the player is holding the ball in the backcourt. In the debated scenario, PC gets established by an airborne player who was last in the FC but lands in the BC. There is an allowance in the rules for this, but the debate is over when that allowance ends.

RushmoreRef Wed Mar 21, 2007 01:17pm

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 :)

Adam Wed Mar 21, 2007 01:22pm

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.

Mark Dexter Wed Mar 21, 2007 01:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RushmoreRef
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

Hmm - this is now making me reconsider. I'll get into the case book this afternoon and see if this is covered in any plays.

RushmoreRef Wed Mar 21, 2007 01:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells
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.

Sorry, have to keep going...

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...

Adam Wed Mar 21, 2007 01:44pm

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.

bob jenkins Wed Mar 21, 2007 01:50pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RushmoreRef
I understand what you're saying but how are you going to call a backcourt violation if there is no team-control established.

You can't. Team control is one of the four requirements for a BC violation:

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:

What about below...

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?
"Some" are wrong. There was never any TC when the ball was in the FC.

RushmoreRef Wed Mar 21, 2007 01:54pm

Quote:

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.
I agree because there is Player Control/Team Control in the first situation but the provision granted on the inbounds ends when the ball is passed because A2 is now causing the backcourt status of the ball.....I AGREE

I guess it's a topic that should be discussed and addressed in a case book play.

Mark Dexter Wed Mar 21, 2007 02:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RushmoreRef
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.

Hmmm - 9.9.1 Sit B seems to come close, but doesn't cover a tip.

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.

RushmoreRef Wed Mar 21, 2007 02:39pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter
Hmmm - 9.9.1 Sit B seems to come close, but doesn't cover a tip.

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.

Same two case plays I looked at....4.12.6 would do the trick but it doesn't cover the airborne player last having frontcourt status....

RushmoreRef Wed Mar 21, 2007 02:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins
You can't. Team control is one of the four requirements for a BC violation:

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.



"Some" are wrong. There was never any TC when the ball was in the FC.


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.

bob jenkins Wed Mar 21, 2007 02:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RushmoreRef
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.

I disagree. When A3 catches the ball, there's TC and the ball in the FC. It's not during the jump ball anymore, so the exception doesn't apply. It's a violation.

(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.)

RushmoreRef Wed Mar 21, 2007 03:01pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins
I disagree. When A3 catches the ball, there's TC and the ball in the FC. It's not during the jump ball anymore, so the exception doesn't apply. It's a violation.

(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.)

I see how the jump ball is a violation....but the other post

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...

SmokeEater Wed Mar 21, 2007 03:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins
I disagree. When A3 catches the ball, there's TC and the ball in the FC. It's not during the jump ball anymore, so the exception doesn't apply. It's a violation.

(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.)


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:

RushmoreRef Wed Mar 21, 2007 03:23pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeEater
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:


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...

Nevadaref Wed Mar 21, 2007 05:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RushmoreRef
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...

Rush,
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

Adam Wed Mar 21, 2007 06:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins
I disagree. When A3 catches the ball, there's TC and the ball in the FC. It's not during the jump ball anymore, so the exception doesn't apply. It's a violation.

(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.)

Bob, thanks for jumping in. Let me ask it this way;
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?

Adam Wed Mar 21, 2007 06:51pm

Okay, here's the applicable rule as it pertains to this play:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rule Book
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.

Again, the debate is whether the parenthetical comment is meant to be all-inclusive or merely provide examples for when this allowance applies.

Nevadaref Wed Mar 21, 2007 07:04pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells
Bob, thanks for jumping in. Let me ask it this way;
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?

No violation. Since Team A had the ball for the throw-in, which ended on the tip, it is clear that B1 is a defensive player and thus his action is covered by 9-9-3.

Jurassic Referee Wed Mar 21, 2007 07:20pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
No violation. Since Team A had the ball for the throw-in, which ended on the tip, it is clear that B1 is a defensive player and thus his action is covered by 9-9-3.

How is it <b>clear</b> who is on offense or defense when there is <b>no</b> player or team control?:confused:

Rules citation?

socalreff Wed Mar 21, 2007 07:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
No violation. Since Team A had the ball for the throw-in, which ended on the tip, it is clear that B1 is a defensive player and thus his action is covered by 9-9-3.

Not a defensive player. There is no defensive player yet. But it is legal because it's a throw-in.

Nevadaref Wed Mar 21, 2007 07:40pm

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.

socalreff Wed Mar 21, 2007 07:44pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
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.

You're right. I misread it. However, there is still no defense or offense as team control has yet to be established.

Jurassic Referee Wed Mar 21, 2007 07:50pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
JR, the team defending the throw-in is clearly on defense.

Clear to who?

Rules citation?

Adam Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:33pm

My point exactly, JR.

Nevadaref Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:54pm

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.

Adam Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:46am

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.

Jurassic Referee Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:53am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
1) 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.

2) I think that it is quite obvious that if one team is making a throw-in, the opponent is playing defense.

1) Common sense- a commodity which seems to be lacking in some of your wingy interpretations.

2) Obvious to who? You? Somehow methinks that doesn't make it so.

Nevadaref Thu Mar 22, 2007 03:16am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
1) Common sense- a commodity which seems to be lacking in some of your wingy interpretations.

2) Obvious to who? You? Somehow methinks that doesn't make it so.

So your position is that defense doesn't exist unless there is team control by one team...
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

RushmoreRef Thu Mar 22, 2007 08:50am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Rush,
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

Thanks for the thread reference....seems like I just read a lot of that somewhere....:)

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.

Jurassic Referee Thu Mar 22, 2007 09:51am

Quote:

Originally Posted by RushmoreRef
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.

Mary Struckhoff knows the rules about as well as Billy Packer.:rolleyes:

socalreff Thu Mar 22, 2007 09:55am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Mary Struckhoff knows the rules about as well as Billy Packer.:rolleyes:

Are you serious or joking?

RushmoreRef Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by socalreff
Are you serious or joking?


I don't doubt that...

Camron Rust Thu Mar 22, 2007 02:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by socalreff
Are you serious or joking?

With some of the interpretations that have come from here, it does make you wonder!

Zoochy Thu Mar 22, 2007 02:15pm

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.

Scrapper1 Thu Mar 22, 2007 02:48pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoochy
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.

So if the player jumps from his backcourt and lands in his backcourt, it's a violation?!?! :D

socalreff Thu Mar 22, 2007 02:49pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrapper1
So if the player jumps from his backcourt and lands in his backcourt, it's a violation?!?! :D

LOL:D :) :)

Mark Dexter Thu Mar 22, 2007 03:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoochy
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.

While it's true that the exception only applies to jumping from FC to BC, scrapper is correct in that jumping from BC and landing in the BC would not be a violation.

Nevadaref Thu Mar 22, 2007 03:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoochy
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:

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter
While it's true that the exception only applies to jumping from FC to BC, scrapper is correct in that jumping from BC and landing in the BC would not be a violation.

There was a play in the other thread that I cited about this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoochy
(4) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their front court (Team B’s backcourt). A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from their backcourt court, catches the ball in the air and lands first foot in the frontcourt, second foot in the backcourt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
My ruling is that this is a backcourt violation. It is probably splitting hairs, but that's my call. Why? Since B2 jumped from his BACKCOURT rule 9-9-3 does not apply to him as that rule specifies a player jumping from his FRONTCOURT. Likewise, since the player is holding the ball, not dribbling it, 4-4-6 (what we call the three points rule) doesn't apply either. Rules 4-35 and 4-4-2 appear to be controlling. When B2 catches the ball both player and team control are established. Since B2 jumped from his backcourt both he and the ball have backcourt status at this time. When the first foot touches in the frontcourt and the second foot has yet to touch the floor the player has frontcourt status per 4-35-1b and 4-35-2 and thus the ball has frontcourt status per 4-4-2. When the second foot lands in the backcourt, the player and the ball both gain backcourt status per the same rules. Thus a backcourt violation has occurred per 9-9-1.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BktBallRef
VIOLATION. No rule allows this.


Dan_ref Thu Mar 22, 2007 04:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
So your position is that defense doesn't exist unless there is team control by one team...
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.

I don't want to get in the middle of your pissing match Emperor but you cannot have goaltending during a throw-in. No such thing exists.

Nevadaref Thu Mar 22, 2007 04:41pm

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.

Dan_ref Thu Mar 22, 2007 05:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
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.


I've already found one but sadly you're not doing a very good job.

Mark Dexter Thu Mar 22, 2007 05:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
There was a play in the other thread that I cited about this.

In that case, my answer is that he landed in the frontcourt. :p

M&M Guy Thu Mar 22, 2007 05:08pm

http://www.buzzle.com/img/articleImages/36128-34.jpg


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:03am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1