back court

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

The only time a player can jump from his/her frontcourt, catch the ball, and land in his/her backcourt is during a throw-in. That is the 9.3.3 exception. It has nothing to do with recovering a ball that has backcourt status.

Speaking of being wrong...

What are you missing?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Good job. It's not often that someone can resurrect a 6-year old thread and be so wrong about it.

Didn't even notice the date of the OP.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Speaking of being wrong...

What are you missing?

Well darn. I'm just making a regular horse's behind of myself today.

The other time a player can jump from his/her frontcourt, catch the ball while airborne and land in his/her backcourt is a player from the team not in control (defensive player or during a jump ball, in addition to during a throw-in).

*Sigh*...this has been a long morning already.

[udbomber]

Pay close attention:

In co2ice scenario, it is not a backcourt violation because A2 touched the inbounds pass and not the defense so you are correct, it is not team control.

Pay close attention: My response was to Mark Dexter's rule of thumb for throw in backcourt violations in particular #1.

There can be a violation for A2 if he leaves the frontcourt with feet in the air on an inbounds pass and the defense touches the ball, then A2 catches ball in the air and lands in backcourt. His player location is now established immediately as frontcourt with the touch of the defense since his last spot was in the frontcourt where his feet were before going airborne.

Read your casebook.

I love this game. Alan

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by udbomber

In Mark Dexter's 4 points, offense does not always have to have control (point #1). Yes it is true, offense can juggle ball across the line and not have control but if the defense touches the ball on the throw-in, the throw-in ends and ball, now TOUCHING offense and going into backcourt , and now being touched by offense first is a backcourt violation.

Pay close attention.

What you wrote above is NOT and NEVER has been a violation.

Read your rulebook. Specifically read NFHS rule 9-9-1. Then find somebody to explain it to you. Ask them if they can find anywhere in your statement where team control had been established in the frontcourt. Ask them to explain to you that merely "touching" a ball does NOT establish player/team control.

You're trying to apply principles from rule 9-9-3 that just aren't applicable. Why aren't they applicable? Pay close attention. Because in 9-9-3 and the irrelevant case book play that you cited, team control WAS established in the frontcourt.

Lah me........

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by udbomber

There can be a violation for A2 if he leaves the frontcourt with feet in the air on an inbounds pass and the defense touches the ball, then A2 catches ball in the air and lands in backcourt. His player location is now established immediately as frontcourt with the touch of the defense since his last spot was in the frontcourt where his feet were before going airborne.

Read your casebook.

Pay close attention.

The highlighted statement is completely wrong. The player location is not established by the touch of the defense. The player location was established immediately when the player jumped. Period.

Read, learn and understand your rulebook. Rule 4-35-3.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by PSidbury

Sorry for beating a dead horse... just looking for more personal validation... as if the rule book cares about my personal validation ...

A1 passes the ball to A2 while established in their frontcourt, however B1 deflects the ball into the backcourt where an A player is the first to touch the ball inbounds.

So, under this scenario, and despite the B1 deflection (causing the ball to go into the backcourt), it is still a backcourt violation...? Yes or no ?

And this scenario may be in the case book (it is in the LHSAA casebook), however I am still "scratching my head" at this one.

Thanks,
Paul

Not a violation. In order to be a violation, Team A must be both the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt and the first to touch it in the backcourt. In your scenario, B was the last to touch in the frontcourt.

The one strange interpretation is that if B deflects the ball in the frontcourt and the ball never bounces in the backcourt but A catches it while in the backcourt, then it is a violation. The interpretation says that A causes the ball to go backcourt by catching it there. Many disagree with this interp, FWIW...

[Coltdoggs]

Been reading on this and trying to play along at home...

On a throw in, a tap by either team does not designate team control so using Dexter's points...how do you have a BC violation without team control, seems pretty striaght forward to me...

I'm echoing Ref in PA here......let me see if I am understading...
you are saying the offensive player that leaps from FC, secures the ball in the air and lands in the BC has now violated? Correct?

And the reason behind this is because:

1- his status was determined by where he took off (FC)...
2-when he possesed the ball (in the air) was when team contol was established...
3- When he lands in the BC he has control of the ball and is now standing in the BC thus BC Violation has occured.

This would be true regardless if any member of either team tapped the ball causing it go into the BC.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Coltdoggs

Been reading on this and trying to play along at home...

On a throw in, a tap by either team does not designate team control so using Dexter's points...how do you have a BC violation without team control, seems pretty striaght forward to me...

I'm echoing Ref in PA here......let me see if I am understading...
you are saying the offensive player that leaps from FC, secures the ball in the air and lands in the BC has now violated? Correct?

And the reason behind this is because:

1- his status was determined by where he took off (FC)...
2-when he possesed the ball (in the air) was when team contol was established...
3- When he lands in the BC he has control of the ball and is now standing in the BC thus BC Violation has occured.

This would be true regardless if any member of either team tapped the ball causing it go into the BC.

On item 3, the violation isn't because he's now standing in the BC, but because he gave the ball FC status when he possessed it in the air, and then was "first to touch" after the ball had BC status.

There is a specific exception that allows this play, IF NO ONE FROM EITHER TEAM HAS TAPPED THE BALL. Once there's a tap, the throw in and the possibility of the exception applying ends. Note however, that A2 can tip the ball into the backcourt (uncontrolled) and then retrieve it with BC status. THere was no team control established on the tip, and if A2 attains bc status before controlling the ball, it's legal. I think.

[Mark Padgett]

BTW - the "other" Mark's fourth point is 99.9% accurate, but not 100%. Since I'm in a nit picky mood, here's the difference. It's not to be the first to touch the ball "in the back court" but "after the ball has been in the back court".

What's the difference? The ball may go into the back court, hit an official, rebound into the front court and the subsequent touch would still count. I have also seen the extremely rare instance where the ball had some kind of backspin on it from a pass, hit in the back court and then spin back into the front court. Again, the subsequent touch would still count. OK - I've only seen that once, but I have seen the situation in which it hit an official 3 or 4 times.

Hey - I told you I was in a nit picky mood.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

BTW - the "other" Mark's fourth point is 99.9% accurate, but not 100%. Since I'm in a nit picky mood, here's the difference. It's not to be the first to touch the ball "in the back court" but "after the ball has been in the back court".

What's the difference? The ball may go into the back court, hit an official, rebound into the front court and the subsequent touch would still count. I have also seen the extremely rare instance where the ball had some kind of backspin on it from a pass, hit in the back court and then spin back into the front court. Again, the subsequent touch would still count. OK - I've only seen that once, but I have seen the situation in which it hit an official 3 or 4 times.

Hey - I told you I was in a nit picky mood.

I agree with this, and I think most on this board do, but ther was, iirc, a comment from a "high rankng FED employee with close ties to the rules committee" who opined otherwise. Somewhat strangely, though, with all the BC interps issued this year, this one didn't make it.

[udbomber]

Read Casebook Scenarios 9.9.3. New scenario for this year explaning when the throw in ends.

Alan

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by udbomber

Pay close attention: My response was to Mark Dexter's rule of thumb for throw in backcourt violations in particular #1.

There can be a violation for A2 if he leaves the frontcourt with feet in the air on an inbounds pass and the defense touches the ball, then A2 catches ball in the air and lands in backcourt. His player location is now established immediately as frontcourt with the touch of the defense since his last spot was in the frontcourt where his feet were before going airborne.

ALAN, PAY CLOSE ATTENTION!

You wrote, "In Mark Dexter's 4 points, offense does not always have to have control (point #1)."

That is completely and totally FALSE.

Team A must ALWAYS have team control for a BC violation to occur.

In the case play that you quote, team control is established when A2 catches the ball. That's why there's a BC violation in the case play.

Here endeth the lesson.

[udbomber]

For those of you who cannot navigate through the rulebook/casebook and put this scenario to rest, read page 72 of the NFHS Casebook (2007-2008) and read 9.9.1 Situation D. At the end of the scenario it then says to reference Rule 9.9.3 which means you now go to the NFHS Rulebook (2007-2008) on Page 58. I hope we all can sleep well now after reading and educating ourselves more of how truly complicated the throw-in can actually be in this wonderful game of basketball. Stay on your toes and keep your game sharp.
Bomber

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by udbomber

For those of you who cannot navigate through the rulebook/casebook and put this scenario to rest, read page 72 of the NFHS Casebook (2007-2008) and read 9.9.1 Situation D. At the end of the scenario it then says to reference Rule 9.9.3 which means you now go to the NFHS Rulebook (2007-2008) on Page 58. I hope we all can sleep well now after reading and educating ourselves more of how truly complicated the throw-in can actually be in this wonderful game of basketball. Stay on your toes and keep your game sharp.
Bomber

Alan, pay close attention. You don't know what you're talking about. You're throwing in meaningless and irrelevant cites trying to justify previous incorrect statements. That ain't gonna work here; there's too many people posting here that actually know the correct rules and rulings. It's that simple.