back court

[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.