Backcourt Question

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rwest

It is a violation in case 1. Look at ART 2 of the rule. Control in the front court is not required.

ART. 2 . . . While in team control in its backcourt, a player shall not cause the ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt and return to backcourt, without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt, and be the first to touch it in the backcourt.

Which part of this rule is not applicable?

Case 1 says

A. Player A2, who is holding the ball in the backcourt [TEAM CONTROL IN BACKCOURT] throws a pass towards teammate A3, who is in the front court. However, the ball strikes an official who is standing in the frontcourt [BALL HAS GONE FROM BACKCOURT TO FRONTCOURT] and rebounds to the backcourt [BALL HAS RETURNED TO BACKCOURT] where A4 catches it. [A4 WAS THE FIRST TO TOUCH IT IN THE BACKCOURT].


Violation.

exactly. And, by similar measures play 2 should be a violation as well. That said, I seem to remember someone writing Mary Strukhoff about this (second)play and she intoned that it was not a violation, and indicated that it would be reviewed at the rules meeting. Maybe we'll see something in the new rules / case books.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

exactly. And, by similar measures play 2 should be a violation as well. That said, I seem to remember someone writing Mary Strukhoff about this (second)play and she intoned that it was not a violation, and indicated that it would be reviewed at the rules meeting. Maybe we'll see something in the new rules / case books.

Why? Don't they have to touch it in the backcourt for it to be a violation? Doesn't the ball have to have backcourt status? In case 2 neither has occurred. The ball has re-established frontcourt status and player A1 has touched it in the frontcourt.

Where's the violation?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rwest

Why? Don't they have to touch it in the backcourt for it to be a violation?

I don't believe so.

I think that the criteria that crazy voyager laid out above are slighlty incorrect (at least for NCAA and FED -- FIBA might be different):

1) Team Control

2) Ball reaches the FC (note that player control in the FC is not required)

3) A last to touch before ball goes to BC (note that touching in the FC is not required)

4) A first to touch after ball goes to BC (note that touching in the BC is not required).

A simpler play that Nevada's second play is: A1 dribbles the ball into the FC and is trapped by the defense near the division line. A1 bounces a pass across the court to A2. The ball bounces on the division line and A2 then catches the ball while standing in the FC.

I'd have a violation on this play.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I don't believe so.

I think that the criteria that crazy voyager laid out above are slighlty incorrect (at least for NCAA and FED -- FIBA might be different):

1) Team Control

2) Ball reaches the FC (note that player control in the FC is not required)

3) A last to touch before ball goes to BC (note that touching in the FC is not required)

4) A first to touch after ball goes to BC (note that touching in the BC is not required).

A simpler play that Nevada's second play is: A1 dribbles the ball into the FC and is trapped by the defense near the division line. A1 bounces a pass across the court to A2. The ball bounces on the division line and A2 then catches the ball while standing in the FC.

I'd have a violation on this play.

ART. 2 . . . While in team control in its backcourt, a player shall not cause the ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt and return to backcourt, without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt, and be the first to touch it in the backcourt.


ART 2 clearly states that the offense has to be the first to touch the ball in the backcourt. Otherwise, why do we wait until the ball is touched in the bc before we call a violation? In case 2 the ball was never touched in the bc.

No violation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

ART. 2 . . . While in team control in its backcourt, a player shall not cause the ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt and return to backcourt, without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt, and be the first to touch it in the backcourt.


ART 2 clearly states that the offense has to be the first to touch the ball in the backcourt. Otherwise, why do we wait until the ball is touched in the bc before we call a violation? In case 2 the ball was never touched in the bc.

No violation.

What rule set is this. It's not NFHS or NCAA, I'm pretty sure. I could be wrong, I suppose.We don't wait until it's touched in the back court. We wait until it's touched again after it goes into the backcourt.

Edited: I was wrong. However, you forgot article one. The violation in this situation is of article 1, not article 2.

[Adam]

Okay, reading Nevada's situation B, I wonder if we could consider this a dribble and therefore a no-call.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by rwest

What violation has occurred in situation b? Backcourt Violation?

Yes, a BC violation.

9.9.1 SITUATION C: A1 is dribbling in his/her backcourt and throws a pass to the frontcourt. While standing in A's frontcourt: (a) A2 or (b) B3 touches the ball and deflects it back to A's backcourt. A2 recovers in the backcourt. RULING: In (a), it is a violation. The ball was in control of Team A, and a player from A was the last to touch the ball in frontcourt and a player of A was the first to touch it after it returned to the back court. In (b), legal play. A Team A player was not the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt. Team A is entitled to a new 10-second count.

It's not necessary that a touch the ball in the BC, only it's touched after it returned to the back court.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Okay, reading Nevada's situation B, I wonder if we could consider this a dribble and therefore a no-call.

When the ball is bounced from a player to a teammate, it's a pass, not a dribble.