Backcourt Question

[Jimgolf]

Why does team control exist after the ball has struck an official?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

Why does team control exist after the ball has struck an official?

Because that team never lost control. Player control--yes.

NFHS rule 4-12-3&4.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

Why does team control exist after the ball has struck an official?

How does team control end?

A shot is taken.
B gains control.
The ball becomes dead.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

How does team control end?

A shot is taken.
B gains control.
The ball becomes dead.

Does Socrates answer his own questions?

[Nevadaref]

For the record, I don't believe that either of the two plays which I posted are backcourt violations according to the rules as written. For this argument it is very important that people make the distinction between backcourt violations due to article 1 and those due to article 2. You can't mix parts of each and come up with a violation.

It is clear that 9-9-1 cannot be used to justify a backcourt violation in either case as no player from the offensive team touched the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt. That article very clearly states that this is required.

So if either of these cases were to be violations 9-9-2 would have to be the provision being broken. However, that article has two clauses in it that have particular bearing on these plays.
The first is that it states "... a player shall not ..." Thus the article is written as a prohibition on a single player, not against a team. It does not contain the word teammate at all. The team article is 9-9-1.
So I wrote the first case to have the ball return to a teammate of the passer, not the passer himself. Strictly that does not break 9-9-2.
The second clause of importance is "in the backcourt." Tony has correctly pointed out that the touching does NOT need to occur "in the backcourt" for a violation under 9-9-1, but for situations governed by 9-9-2, this certainly is a requirement. Thus the second play was carefully crafted to have the original passer retouch the ball in the FRONTCOURT instead of the backcourt. So again, the exact wording of the text has not been infringed.

The dribble defintion is something that I only briefly considered, and is why I wrote that the player had not previously dribbled.

I'm now wondering if 4-4-6 and it's interpretations have made it nearly impossible for a violation to be committed under 9-9-2. The only situation that I can think of is a player throwing the ball from his own backcourt off the backboard in his frontcourt and having it return to him untouched. That would be a violation because 4-4-5 says that this action is not a dribble.

For example, if a player is standing still in his backcourt a few feet from the division line and tosses the ball with backspin into the frontcourt where it bounces and returns untouched to the player who has not moved would that be a dribble and thus the ball never attained frontcourt status per 4-4-5 or would that be a violation of 9-9-2?

[BktBallRef]

Wrong as usual.

[Nevadaref]

Well, Tony, you're the backcourt guru, but not even you can deny what is there in black and white.

One can't use the 4 points summary for these plays because that really is attempting to subject these plays to what's in 9-9-1, and I've clearly made the case that that isn't appropriate as the ball was not touched in the frontcourt.

So if you still believe that my opinion is mistaken, then please explain why. I seriously and nonsarcastically await your wisdom.

PS Don't provide a case play in which the offensive team does touch the ball in the frontcourt.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Wrong as usual.

Agree of course, but Good Lord, please don't argue it with him. We'll get another of his 10,000 word eye-glazing sleep-inducing confusing rules soliloquys, trying to prove that white is black and east is west. Again.

Let silly monkeys lay iow.

Taurus excreta cerebrum vincit!

[crazy voyager]

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

True, I must admitt I didn't think so far (I stared myself blind at the 3 points, wich I now think should be changed slightly).

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

These criterias I've been taught in regards to fiba rules, I'm not sure about other rules set but I belive the ncaa have somewhat diffrent thinking regarding bc violations (not sure about fed). But yes for most other rulesets this would probably not be completly right (and as it turned out, they're not exactly right for fiba either, but then again these are 3 points to make it easier for officials to learn what is a bc and what's not, they're not the rulebook).