Question: Player(team A)is in the backcourt sends a pass headed to the front court but is tipped by player(team B). Intended recipient of pass on (team A) has ball bounce off him as a result of the tipped pass and retreives the ball in the backcourt. Is this a backcourt violation?

no, there was no player control in the frontcourt. I am sure the others will enlighten you on the four requirements, as I don't have the energy.

I think this is a backcourt violation, but there is not enough information to say. If the ball bounced off the recipient in FC, this would be a violation. Here are the four requirements for a BC violation. If any one is missing, there is no violation:

(1) Team A has control.
>>There is team control on the pass, team control for A does not end here because B did not gain control.<<

(2) Ball has frontcourt status.
>>I'm assuming from that the pass that was going into the frontcourt, it either touched the floor in the FC or a player in the FC.<<

(3) An A player must be the last to touch the ball before it goes into the backcourt.
>>It does not matter that it tipped off of B1 and then off of A2, it was still tipped back by A2.<<

(4) A player from A must be the first to touch the ball in the backcourt.
>>A2 apparently did this here.<<

From what I'm assuming, this is a BC. There is no need for player control in the frontcourt, just team control and ball frontcourt status. For example, A1 and A2 are standing in the backcourt near the dividing line. A1 bounce-passes to A2, and the ball bounces in the front-court and then to A2. Backcourt violation in this case.

Not a violation
 

There was no team control in the frontcourt, this is similar to when the ball is in the frontcourt and gets tipped into the backcourt by the defense.

Not a violation
 

Just a reminder, three points of interest when checking frontcourt/backcourt.

1) Left Foot
2) Right Foot
3) Ball

All three must enter the frontcourt (regarding PLAYER control) before the ball can be established in the frontcourt.

Re: Not a violation
 

This is only when dribbling from the BC to the FC.

Re: Not a violation
 

First, there is no requirement for team control in the frontcourt. There simply needs to be team control and the ball must touch the frontcourt.

In your case, A does have team control in the frontcourt (team control does not end upon the other team touching the ball) - it is not a violation because offense was not the last to touch before it went backcourt.

Only during dribbling
 

If A1 jumps from FC, catches the ball, and comes down with one foot FC, if the other foot or the ball touches BC, you have a violation.

Yes. This is a violation. Team A is in control. The tip by B1 does not cause a loss of team control by team A, regardless of where B1 was standing at the time of the tip. When A2 got hit by the ball in the frontcourt, the ball established frontcourt status. A2 was last to touch in the frontcourt, and first to touch after the ball was in the backcourt. There was team control. All 4 elements are satisfied. Violation.

Note: the rule is not "touch in the backcourt", but "touch after the ball has been in the backcourt". There's a subtle difference, but it is moot here. The difference would come into play if, for instance, the ball hits an official in the backcourt then bounces back into the frontcourt. There are a few more examples.

[Edited by Mark Padgett on Dec 19th, 2001 at 06:31 PM]

Let me restate your scenario. A1 throws pass to front court. B1, in front court, tips pass, tipped pass deflects off A2, in front court, toward backcourt, and then A2 (or any other A) retrieves in backcourt.

This is a violation.

1. A had team control
2. Ball had front court status
3. A was last to touch in front court
4. A was first to touch in back court

Remember, the tip by B does not change the fact that A has team control. B must have player control to achieve team control. A has team control up until a dead ball or until B gets team control. So even though A does not have player control, A has not lost team control.

Variations on a theme
If A2 is backcourt when the tipped ball deflects, no violation - A2 was not last to touch in front court, B was, condition 4 not met.

If neither A nor B are front court, no violation because ball never had front court status, condition 2 not met.

If B ever touches ball after A2 deflects and before A retrieves in backcourt, no violation, because either condition 3 or condition 4 were not met (depending on position of B at time of touch.

However, if A1 passes in backcourt (can even be toward A3 also backcourt), B is in backcourt and tips A1's pass into A2 in front court, then A2 steps backcourt to retrieve, you amazngly still have a bizarre backcourt violation because all four conditions above were met! Just one last fun variation :D

I erroneously generalized about ball in backcourt. Mark P's revised post has it right. A must be first to touch afer ball has been in backcourt. Another example is a spinning ball that goes backcourt then returns front court - still a violation if A is last to touch before and first to touch after.

You guys are in sooooooooooooo much trouble when TH gets home!!! :D

chuck

I stand corrected...
 

After further reading the explinations I must agree that this is a BC violation. In lamens terms:

A player from the team in control must NOT be the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt and then the FIRST to touch the ball in the backcourt or you will have a backcourt violation.

Thank you all for this explination as now I will make the correct call should this ever happen to me.

Re: I stand corrected...
 

Not quite.

The team in control does not have to actually touch the ball in the frontcourt. They simply have to be the first to touch it after it was in the frontcourt.

Similarly, they do not have to touch the ball, they only need to be the first to touch after it has been in the backcourt.

Funky example:
You're playing on a cruise ship which crosses the international date line . . . (oops, wrong example!)

This would probably never happen according to the laws of physics, but let's assume it did. B2 just scored, and A1 inbounds to A2 (from OOB!!!!!!). A2 dribbles upcourt and, while in the backcourt, throws a bounce pass to A3 who is in the frontcourt.

The ball hits the floor in the FC, then bounces into the BC, and finally bounces into the FC where A3 eventually picks up the ball - Backcourt Violation.

Separating the two, let's take the touching the FC. A1 and A2 are standing in the backcourt near the dividing line. A1 bounce-passes to A2, and the ball bounces in the front-court and then to A2. Backcourt violation in this case.

For touching the BC, A3 is dribbling in the FC. The ball gets away from him, touches the halfcourt line (which is, remember, in the backcourt), and then bounces back into the frontcourt where A3 picks the ball up - once again, a backcourt violation has occured.

This is <b>not</b> a violation in FIBA here is the actual rule:

<i>
40.1.2 The ball is considered to have returned to his backcourt when a player of the team in control of the ball is:
• The last to touch the ball in his front court, and then a player of that same team is the first to touch the ball,
− After it has touched the backcourt, or
− If this player is in contact with the backcourt.
• The last to touch the ball in his backcourt, following which the ball touches the front court, and then a player of that same team, who is in contact with the backcourt, is the first to touch the ball.
This restriction applies to all situations in a team's front court, including throw-ins.

<b>Art. 23 Control of the ball</b>
23.1 A player is in control of the ball when he is holding or dribbling or
has a live ball at his disposal.
23.2 A team is in control of the ball when a player of that team is in
control of a live ball or the ball is being passed between team-mates.</i>

Yet again a difference between NFHS and FIBA :)

Oz
much of what you say exactly mirrors what the NF rule is. The only issue that I see is possibly team control. In FIBA, can one team have control, then the game revert back to a state where neither team has control without either a try on goal (something I failed to list in my haste!), the opposite team gaining control, or the ball becoming dead? I.e., can a team lose "team control" when the ball has gotten away from them but the other team has not yet gained control?

I'm home!! :)

But looks like Mark and Mark straightened everything out! ;)

Only took this Mark about three tries . . .

Hopefully it only takes one in our games!

Another example, that is physically possible
 

A1 is being trapped in his FC at the corner of the division line and sideline. He bounce passes to A2, who is in his FC. However, he uses "english" on the ball to spin it around the defenders.... ball bounces in the backcourt to A2 still in the FC. Violation!

One other that I deomonstrated on court to my son last weekend while we were waiting for his ref class to get there. A1 and A2 front court near division line, A1 bounce passes and hits division line, A2 grabs while remaining front court. Line is backcourt, so ball went backcourt, violation.

Yep!

Or how about the opposite situation? A1 and A2 both straddling the division line. Bounce pass by A1 hits in the FC. A2 catches pass.

Tweet! BC violation!

Tweet! Technical foul on Coach A!

Both, good calls! :)

You're probably right on both calls Tony :)

The coaches that complain about backcourt calls usually 1) don't know the rule and 2) neglected to tell their players not to mess around anywhere near that line! If you make obviously clean plays, you don't worry about the backcourt (or any other) calls. Go borderline, especially at midcourt, you roll the dice as to what the ref sees and calls.

I am going to the the fly in the ointment on this play because there as been two pages of postings and none of them are valid for the posted play because there is not enough information to make a ruling. The only thing that we know from the original posting is that A1 had player control of the ball in Team A' backcourt.

Before we can make an informed ruling on this play, we need to know where B1 was when he tipped the ball and where A1 was when the ball hit him before he retrieved it in the backcourt.

Play #1: B1 had backcourt status and A2 had backcourt status when the ball touched B1 and then touched A2.

Play #2: B1 had backcourt status and A2 had frontcourt status when the ball touched B1 and then touched A2 before touching in the backcourt and then being recovered by A2.

Play #3a: B1 had frontcourt status and A2 had backcourt status when the ball touched B1 and then touched A2 without touching the floor in the backcourt.

Play #3b: B1 had frontcourt status and A2 had backcourt status when the ball touched B1 and then touched A2, but only after touching the floor in the backcourt.

Play #4: B1 had backcourt status and A2 had frontcourt status when the ball touched B1 and then touched A2, and the ball touched in the backcourt and was recovered by A2.

Mark,
Please look at my initial post on the subject, in which I restate the play so we can start with enough information to render a decision. I start with one assumption about what the situation that he tried to describe, then proceed to change the basic circumstances and discuss whether or not the play remains a violation, and if not, what condition was no longer met. I may not have covered exhaustively every possibility, but I tried to give the various permutations that could have occurred and how the call would differ. So if you read all two pages of postings on the subject, I don't know why there was a need to indicate that we were all full of it and failed to notice that the initial description lacked sufficient information to render a definitive opinion. Some of us knew that and tried to give an answer anyway by providing clearer definition so the different possibilities could be addressed. This is far more useful than providing situations with no answers, and hopefully provides the needed information to the person who initially asked the question.

Also, I disagree that we need to know where B was. All we need to know is that A had control, ball was front court while A had control, A was the last team to touch in frontcourt, and A was first team to touch after the ball went backcourt. Where does B's position ever factor into this equation? How would a backcourt vs frontcourt position of B change the call?

[Edited by Hawks Coach on Dec 20th, 2001 at 11:18 AM]

As an engineer, one thing that I always apply in engineering and officiating, is a simple rule that my high school geometry teacher taught me: When you assume you make an A(SS) of U and ME. I stand by my posting. I do not believe that there is enough information to make a ruling.

Mark, you are beyond comprehension. If I had assumed I knew what he meant, stuck with his initial description, then answered based on my assumptions, you are correct - I would have been an A$$. BUT I DID NOT DO THIS!

The whole point of my first post was to cover the full realm of possibilities that the non-specific original post encompassed. I restated his sitch for purposes of providing one possible scenario, then altered the sitch within the general information provided precisely because I did not know what this guy's specific sitch was. DUH!

This allowed me to 1) let the person know how specific the rule is so they know what factors to weigh when making the call (and what information to provide when requesting assistance!), and 2) provide an answer to the situation so they aren't here a week later still wondering. By covering all possible sitches (under his general scenario) AND answering them, I was trying to help someone, not be an A$$. And I did not assume I knew what he was talking about, i provided some information and he can come back with more info if we did not specifically address his problem.

By being rude and failing to actually answer this person's question and demean those of us who did, it seems clear who was being the A$$.

Mr. DeNucci Sr. sir - if A2 had been in the backcourt, there would not have been the post at all since there is no issue. I agree it is risky to assume, but in this case, the post only becomes a case if A2 was in the frontcourt when the ball hit him.

Assuming (there's that word again)A2 was in the frontcourt, it is irrelevant as to the status of B1, so one can make a ruling that is valid.

That ruling is: violation.

Violation
 

I would call a violation, since the ball touched another member of Team A in the frontcourt, then recovered in the backcourt with nobody else touching it.

Man, some of you guys must be getting really antsy about not having bought anything for your wife for Christmas yet.

Maybe, it is the engineering in me or whether I am teaching a H.S. math or physics class or teaching my basketball officiating class or conducting a rules seminar for my association, but I just thought that the play posted was not very well done and that to make an accurate assesement of the situation it needed to be more clearly stated.

Lets lighten up fellas, its the Holiday Season.

Several of us said that (I know I did) prefacing our first posts. From there, it simply turned into a rather random discussion of the FC/BC rules. The fact that the original situation was ambiguous does not erase the rulings that were made on other play situations which were discussed!

Thank you Mark DEXTER. I thought we were being preety light handed and only one person chose to come in heavy handed late in the game.

Gee. No thanks to me? I'm going to take my ball and go home. So there!

Thanks MP too - I was just referring to his last post :)

I appreciate that you, too, saw fit to try to restate the question as something that could be answered, and then answer it, rather than cop an attitude.

so Mr. DeNucci are you going to provide answers to your situations?

Jake

I will offer my answers since Mr. DeNucci is still worrying about the lack of clarity in the intial situation. In each scenario, we are looking for 1) team control, 2) ball with frontcourt status, 3) A last to touch FC, and 4) A first to touch after ball goes BC.

1 No violation. Even if ball achieved FC status prior to touching B1(not clearly stated in Mr. DeNucci's scenario and I don't want to assume!), B is first to touch in BC.
2 Violation - A team control, ball had FC status, A last to touch FC and first to touch after ball had gone BC
3a No violation - B last to touch in FC
3b No violation - same as above (not clear as to the significance of differentiating between ball hitting court BC and A2 touching ball while BC)
4 Violation, same as 2 above

Those are my answers. Since there were some curious differences between a couple of the examples, I would like to know if Mark DeNucci accepts these answers.