Backcourt/Frontcourt Interpretation

[RushmoreRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It ain't the first one that she's screwed up. She needs to stick to editing.

I'm lost....anyway..think she made it clear that there is some room for interpretation with this rule and that they would look at it in committee, which is what all of us would like to have happen.

What I deduced from the email is this...a tip doesn't end the provisions of 9.9.3....what we still need to know is does this apply to a defender that jumps from the backcourt to frontcourt (doesn't say that in the rule) and is the parenthesis situations all inclusive or just examples.

Am I correct in this or are there other questions?...I'd like to know before I send my final email back to the association and eventually they will send it to her.

[Nevadaref]

Those are pretty much the three points that need addressing due to the current wording of the rule.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by RushmoreRef

what we still need to know is does this apply to a defender that jumps from the backcourt to frontcourt (doesn't say that in the rule)

???

A defender jumping from the BC to the FC is always legal.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

???

A defender jumping from the BC to the FC is always legal.

Bob, go take a look at play #4 above. The defender jumped from his backcourt, caught the ball with both feet in the air, and landed first foot down in his frontcourt and then the second foot down in his backcourt.

Do you say that is legal?

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Bob, go take a look at play #4 above. The defender jumped from his backcourt, caught the ball with both feet in the air, and landed first foot down in his frontcourt and then the second foot down in his backcourt.

Do you say that is legal?

Nevadaref, Thanks for reading the whole play. Is the landing a problem? I feel it is! It is what make the violation in play #4.
The player has BC status when he/she jumps off the floor. Catches the ball(Player now has team/player control). 1st foot down in FC. Therefore FC status. Next foot lands in BC. BAM! Violation!!!

[jkjenning]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

Nevadaref, Thanks for reading the whole play. Is the landing a problem? I feel it is! It is what make the violation in play #4.
The player has BC status when he/she jumps off the floor. Catches the ball(Player now has team/player control). 1st foot down in FC. Therefore FC status. Next foot lands in BC. BAM! Violation!!!

No team control before the jump, so who cares where the jump initiated? I thought the key was supposed to be that so long as team control had not been established and a player catches the ball in the air, then a normal landing is allowed.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jkjenning

No team control before the jump, so who cares where the jump initiated? I thought the key was supposed to be that so long as team control had not been established and a player catches the ball in the air, then a normal landing is allowed.

Maybe, but that's not how the rule is worded. It's worded specifically, "a player may jump from his front court...." If they want it your way, they need to change it. This would be a simple change. Otherwise, it's a violation.

[jkjenning]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Maybe, but that's not how the rule is worded. It's worded specifically, "a player may jump from his front court...." If they want it your way, they need to change it. This would be a simple change. Otherwise, it's a violation.

Right, I thought Zoochy's point was in the context of proposed changes.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

Nevadaref, Thanks for reading the whole play. Is the landing a problem? I feel it is! It is what make the violation in play #4.
The player has BC status when he/she jumps off the floor. Catches the ball(Player now has team/player control). 1st foot down in FC. Therefore FC status. Next foot lands in BC. BAM! Violation!!!

Under the current wording of the rule, I agree with you and said so in another thread which you started a few weeks months ago.

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Under the current wording of the rule, I agree with you and said so in another thread which you started a few weeks ago.

Few weeks ago??? The original post was started Nov 14, 2006. Time flys when you're having fun.