Backcourt/Frontcourt Interpretation

[RushmoreRef]

Guys,

I submitted these rules questions from a post back in 2000 which was similar to our recent post on Backcourt/Frontcourt and the provisions in rule 9.9.3. Sent to our state association and they were forwarded to Mary Struckoff at the NFHS and received a reply a few days later.

Was impressed with the quick response and this is not an attempt to pursuade anyone one way or the other. Worth noting that at the end is a comment about the (parenthesis) exeptions...she mentioned addressing them to the committee and adding some case book plays next year....Just wanted to have all interested able to read the entire dialog.

I have four rules scenario questions that I would appreciate an
interpretation on....I listed the specific situations below.

4 plays. Legal or violation? And why!!!

(1) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their front court.
A1's throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1.
A2 jumps from their frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in
the backcourt.

Answer: No violation, play on. The provision in 9-9-3 permits the play.
Team control is established when A2 gains possession and lands in the
backcourt.

(2) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their backcourt (Team
B's frontcourt).
A1's throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1.
B2 jumps from their frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in
the backcourt.

Answer: Same as #1 above, except now for B2.

(3) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their backcourt (Team
B's frontcourt).
A1's throw-in is intercepted by B1. B1 had jumped from their frontcourt,
caught the ball in the air and lands first foot in the frontcourt,
second foot in the backcourt.

Answer: No violation, play on. 9-9-3, last sentence indicates it doesn't
matter if one foot lands before the other provided it is a "normal
landing."

(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.

Answer: Same as #3 above.

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."

EXPLANATION (Of question we have with the situations above) - Rule 9.9.3 above states situations when an airborne player
may secure a ball after jumping from their frontcourt and land in their
backcourt without a violation. The question that arises is this: Does
that exception stop at the end of the throw-in (examples above are a
tipped pass by the defense on a throw in) and a defensive player would
then commit a violation if he caught the tipped ball while airborne
after jumping from the backcourt, securing the ball in midair and
landing in the backcourt.

OR is it intended to mean that anytime there is no team control a player
may secure a ball while airborne and land anywhere on the court without
committing a BC violation.

Answer: I believe your second explanation is the intent of the rule. No
team control during a throw-in, and even though, by rule, the throw-in
has ended, the exception in 9-9-3 is for the player who gains control
while airborne, and only that player. Look at the S & I on p. 102.

Are the exceptions in parenthesis all inclusive or just examples?

Answer: Well, I think they were intended to be all inclusive, but you
raise a good point. I will take these scenarios to the committee in
April and have them give their opinion and then we will write up some
new case plays for next year's book.

Hope this helps.

Mary

[jkjenning]

Thanks!

[Nevadaref]

Thanks for doing some grunt work for all officials. If your emails result in a clarification of 9-9-3, that will be a good thing for everyone.
I think that you should send a follow up email that includes the explanations of these plays that BktBallRef and I wrote in that other thread I referred to you. It seems that Mary didn't grasp some of the problems with the wording of the current rule. Her answer to #4 is indicative of that. She seemed to fail to notice that the player is jumping from his backcourt to his frontcourt, not the other way around, in that play and thus clearly is not covered by the wording of 9-9-3.

Also there seems to be a typo in the paragraph that begins with EXPLANATION.
"...a defensive player would then commit a violation if he caught the tipped ball while airborne after jumping from the backcourt, securing the ball in midair and landing in the backcourt."

Shouldn't that be frontcourt?

[RushmoreRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Thanks for doing some grunt work for all officials. If your emails result in a clarification of 9-9-3, that will be a good thing for everyone.
I think that you should send a follow up email that includes the explanations of these plays that BktBallRef and I wrote in that other thread I referred to you. It seems that Mary didn't grasp some of the problems with the wording of the current rule. Her answer to #4 is indicative of that. She seemed to fail to notice that the player is jumping from his backcourt to his frontcourt, not the other way around, in that play and thus clearly is not covered by the wording of 9-9-3.

Also there seems to be a typo in the paragraph that begins with EXPLANATION.
"...a defensive player would then commit a violation if he caught the tipped ball while airborne after jumping from the backcourt, securing the ball in midair and landing in the backcourt."

Shouldn't that be frontcourt?

Yes there is a typo as you stated, hopefully that was interpretted and understood to be wrong.

IMO, what she was saying about #3 and #4 is that anytime a ball is secured while in the air, the "normal landing" provision takes precedence and they are allowed to land in that way....

She mentioned talking with the committee and adding them to the casebook plays for next season. You can bet when I get mine that I will be opening it directly to 9.9.3 and checking.

I'll look into sending the explanations the two of you had in your thread.....let you know if I hear anything from that.

[Zoochy]

RushmoreRef, thanks for submitting my 4 questions to your state association and to Mary Struckoff at the NFHS.
I am still having a problem with her rules interpolation to Question 4.

(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.

In this case play, the player jumps from the backcourt, secures control in the air, lands FC then BC. 9-9-3 states that for the exception, the player has to jump from the FC.

[RushmoreRef]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

RushmoreRef, thanks for submitting my 4 questions to your state association and to Mary Struckoff at the NFHS.
I am still having a problem with her rules interpolation to Question 4.

(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.

In this case play, the player jumps from the backcourt, secures control in the air, lands FC then BC. 9-9-3 states that for the exception, the player has to jump from the FC.

I see what you mean.....hopefully a clafication will come with that....I'm thinking that she is stating that any time there is no team control, a normal landing is permitted and don't know if she didn't see that the jump came from the BC or if she is saying it doesn't matter.