Backcourt Question
 

I've never gotten this straight in my head...I've been on a officiating hiatus for about 8 yrs...coached for awhile...now I'm back to officiating. :)

#1 Team A is inbounding the ball...A1 throws the ball to A2 who jumps from the frontcourt into the backcourt...violation?

#2 A1 is bringing the ball upcourt and is in the backcourt. A1 passes the ball to A2 who has jumped from the frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt...violation?

I've thought it through and thought that in #1 the throw-in isn't completed until the player touches the floor...thus, no possession has been established in the frontcourt. In #2, all three points have not crossed the half-court line (ball and both feet), so no violation here, either.

Thanks for your thoughts.

backcourt
 

#1 no violation

#2 violation;)

Blind Zebra is not so blind after all, he hit this one on the head!!!:eek:

CLH

You're right about #1 not being a violation, but you've got the wrong reason. When you say that a throw-in isn't complete until the player touches the floor, that's incorrect. And it's not the reason that there's no violation in the stated play. The reason (in NFHS) is .... darn it, I can't find the dag-nabbit citation, but there's an exception written into the rules that says that a player from the team in control can catch the ball while in mid-air, having jumped from that team's frontcourt, and land in the backcourt, and it's not a violation.

In #2, it's a violation. The three point rule only applies to a player dribbling from backcourt to frontcourt. In your play, the ball begins with backcourt status. It is then passed to A2 who has frontcourt status, even while in the air since he jumped from the frontcourt, so when the ball touches A2, it attains frontcourt status. Now when A2 lands in the backcourt, the ball has backcourt status again. Tweet!

rainmaker is correct, except that she left out the word NOT in her post while answering part 1. ;)
Here is the rule citation:

RULE 9
SECTION 9 BACKCOURT
ART. 1 . . . A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.
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. 3 . . . A player from the team not in control (defensive player or during a jump ball or throw-in) may legally jump from his/her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt.
PENALTY: (Section 9) The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation.

Posting the text of the rule makes me wonder what most people think about the following two plays. Please closely examine the wording of the rule when answering.

A. Player A2, who is holding the ball in the 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 and rebounds to the backcourt where A4 catches it.

B. Player A1, who has not yet dribbled, is holding the ball in the backcourt and decides to make a pass. His throws a spinning bounce pass diagonally across the court. The ball bounces once in the frontcourt, but due to the spin returns to the backcourt where it hits an official (inbounds) and rolls into the frontcourt again. A1 runs into the frontcourt and picks up the ball.

Violation in both cases. Ball hitting official = ball striking the floor at that officials' position.

I don't agree, yes the ball has "hit the floor" when it hits the official. But there's never been control established in the front court (the ball striking the floor doesn't mean the team has touched the ball in the fc). Therefore no violation should be called
for a bc the follwing 3 things must happen:
1 The team is the last to touch the ball in the fc
2 The team is the first to touch it in the bc
3 The team has control of the ball at the time

And unlike the NFHS fiba has no exception regarding bc during a throw in (not from what I know anyway). The case discribed at the top is a bc under fiba rules.

It's not a violation in case # 2. The ball was not touched in the backcourt by team A. The ball bounced off of the official and went back into the frontcourt. That is where A1 picked up the ball. At least it's not a backcourt violation. However, he better not dribble again or I believe its a violation.

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.

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?

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.

You're right, Nevada. I was thinking that the wording was specifically that the team in control could never do this... EXCEPT during a throw-in. I looked and looked for the word EXCEPTION and couldn't find the reference. Now, I've learned something new. THanks.

Player A2, who is holding the ball in the backcourt, throws a pass towards teammate A3, who is in the front court.
Start of dribble.
However, the ball strikes an official who is standing in the frontcourt and rebounds to the backcourt where A4 catches it.
End of dribble. Since A2 was dribbling, 3 point rule applies...no BC violation????? (or am I overthinking this?)

If I were to critique your thinking here it would be to say that you're defining the start of a dribble incorrectly. The initial throw was intended to be, and most likely looked like, a pass not the start of a dribble. Perhaps the 3-point rule should include that the dribble from backcourt to frontcourt has to start with all three points in the backcourt.

Please accept this amendment to sitch #1 above - The exception applies to throw-ins.

Also, please, note Nevada's 1:15AM post for further exceptions.

The start of a dribble is based on intention? Not following....:o

When a player throws a bounce pass towards a teammate, it's a pass, not a dribble. Only when the the thrower is the first to retrieve that pass does the pass become a dribble.
So, if a player in the backcourt throws the ball towards the midcourt line, realizes his teammate won't reach it before the opponent, and proceeds to track down the pass, this could be considered a dribble.
In Nevada's post, I think you could make an argument that if, after the ball hits the official the thrower is the first to touch it, it could be considered a dribble and therefore no violation.
However, if a teammate retrieves this ball, then the throw was a pass and it's a violation.

A. Violation

B. Violation

Oopsies! My bad! I see it now, ball went A2-ref-A4.

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.

How does team control end?

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

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 violation has occurred in situation b? Backcourt 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.

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

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.


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

In situation B of Nevada's post, the ball never made it to a teammate. A1 threw the ball. The ball hit the ref and bounced around. Then A1 was the first to touch the ball. If he hadn't dribbled prior to the pass, this legal without regard to the mid-court line. Can't it be considered a dribble for back-court purposes as well since it's a dribble for traveling purposes?

Good question. According to ncaa AR 79 this is a dribble. I don't see why it wouldn't be a dribble for the purposes of the BC rule.

Same as nfhs 4.15.4.c btw

Does Socrates answer his own questions?

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?

Wrong as usual.

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.

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.

<i>Taurus excreta cerebrum vincit!</i>

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).

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).

That is exactly the point which I am striving to make with these two plays. For NFHS and NCAA, we have this nice four-point checklist, but it is not a true substitute for the text of the rule. When one wants to really get the facts, one must go to the actual text.

The danger with using the four-point system is that one may try apply it when it is inappropriate to do so.
For example, the second point has been phrased as, "The player or a teammate was the last to touch the ball before it went to the backcourt." This criterion could be met without the player or teammate ever touching the ball in the frontcourt as is clearly required by 9-9-1. Thus the checklist would give a false positive.

The same could be said for the wording of the third point with regard to the backcourt and article 9-9-2.

A lot of things could be said about many things. I'm sure you'll contribute your fair share on this topic and if you keep going along these lines most of them will be wrong. You are once more using your faulty interpretation of the wording to mislead yourself (and others) as to the intent of the rule. IOW this discusison is just so much bullsh1t.

What is interesting to me though is that in your play A1 in the BC has in fact dribbled by rule when he passes the ball and it bounces back to him off the official standing in the FC. So the 3 points while dribbling guideline applies and A1 has not committed a BC violation in this play.

Anyone disagree with this?

I disagree that the "actual text" is always correct. We have case plays that "clarify" the wording -- and are inconsistent with it. In general (or at least frequently), the case play overrides the text. We also have the "must understand the intent of the rules" guidleins, which implies that the literal reading of the rules is not always correct.

I concur that the actions of A1 do indeed meet the definition of a dribble and back in post #33 I asked which rule takes priority: 4-4-6 or 9-9-2.
I have no reason for picking one rule over the other.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Nevadaref
That is exactly the point which I am striving to make with these two plays. For NFHS and NCAA, we have this nice four-point checklist, but it is not a true substitute for the text of the rule. When one wants to really get the facts, one must go to the actual text.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Obviously, I don't agree with that position, bob. I do not deny that there are some case plays which are inconsistent with the rules. I simply take the position that those case plays are wrong and that the people who wrote them did a poor job of interpreting the text. They eventually should be overturned. It is my opinion that the actual text always carries more weight than some play ruling because that's what the RULE is.

This is the way constitutional law works. ;)

You do realize, don't you Nevada, that the NFHS rules aren't necessarily based on a constitutional system? You are just getting way too anal about all this, imo.

I though that, in this country, constitutional law works whatever way the President wants it to depending on his mood that day. At least, that's what it seems like lately. :eek:

Ok, I'm jumping in a long way from the beginning of this conversation, but I would've thought NFHS case plays are no different than court rulings in law. The actual court rulings determine the "spirit and intent" of the written law, and in a lot of cases, expand upon it. Isn't it usually the case that the law is poorly written, and the court cases give guidance on how the law is to be interpreted? How many times do attorneys cite specific cases, rather than the actual law? Isn't this the reason for the NFHS case plays - to expand and explain the intent of the rule? If the Fed. decides they want a different interpretation, they will change the case play accordingly. Therefore, I would conclude case plays take precedence over any possibly unclear wording in the rule itself.

WOBW<i></i>

Yea, I know.

But, sometimes I think the monkees are cute.

All true, but the case law (court decisions) often go back and forth as different judges make rulings or one judge later changes his mind. My point is that the case rulings are temporary thoughts of some individuals while the text of the Constitution has only changed 27 times in the history of our country. It is more stable and when court decisions or federal statutes are made which conflict with it, those decisions and statutes get struck down.

The same is true for the NFHS committee members who may issue a case play or an official interpretation. Other people may or may not be in agreement as these rulings are subject to who sits on the NFHS rules committee at any one time. On the other hand the text of the rule book is less fleeting. Obviously the committee makes rule changes all the time and with much more frequency than the US Constitution is amended, but their rulings still needed to be based upon what is written in the rules book. If they issue something which is obviously in contradiction to the text of the rules, then logic dictates that the rule takes priority. Afterall we must enforce the rules as written! ;)

Waste Of Big Words? :confused:

I think we might be comparing things differently. I look at the constitution similarly to the 20 Basketball Rules Fundamentals. Those are the basics; they have not changed in a while. The rules themselves are similar to the laws Congress passes - they might have changed based upon who is in power at the time, but they still need to conform the "basics", the rule fundamentals or the constitution. The constitution isn't concerned with, for example, how many years a person should be sentenced for a crime, just as the fundamentals aren't concerned with the specifics of a penalty (OOB, FT's, number of FT's, etc.). The case plays then expand on the rules, just like court cases expand on the laws that have been passed.

I disagree. Logic dictates whichever was issued last should take priority.
You're essentially saying the case plays are meaningless.

Waste Of Band Width.....

Is that anything like a panty waste?

Depends on whether or not your band wears panties.

http://media.musictoday.com/store/ba...ium/CTAM51.JPG

And nfhs rules change on average 27 time every few years. So there goes THAT theory.

For the rest of you people who live on planet earth in non-third world countries...isn't ansybody going to addres my question? Do we agree this is NOT a BC violation??

geeze...

I'll bet you a twinkie it isn't a violation.

Make it Cold Stone ice cream and you're on. Actually, I'm just looking for an excuse to go and losing a bet would work.

Sez who?? Merciful Heavens, King James Inerrancy applied to the Bible is difficult enough, but applied to the NFHS rules book?!?!? God save us from ourselves...

Sez the NFHS, that's who! ;)

2006-07 Points of Emphasis

5. Rules Enforcement and Proper Use of Signals. The committee has seen a movement away from the consistent application of rule enforcement and use of approved mechanics/signals.
A. Rules Enforcement. Officials need to be aware that personal interpretations of the rules have a negative impact on the game. The rules are written to provide a balance between offense and defense, minimize risks to participants, promote the sound tradition of the game and promote fair play. Individual philosophies and deviations from the rules as written negatively impact the basic fundamentals and tenants of the rules.

Before I address the philosophical question, I want to just ask, I hope the word "tenants" isn't spelled that way in the rule book. I know that generally we don't discuss spelling issues here, but that one would be pretty egregious if your quotation is correct.

Edited to add: Oh, dear, I went and looked it up, and it IS spelled incorrectly. I can't even imagine insisting on "following the rules as written" when this kind of error is what's written. Nevada, wouldn't you like to modify your stance just a little, even?

Here is my interpretation - for what it is worth

A. Violation. Team A has control. The ball obtains front court status when it hits the ref who is standing in front court. When A4 touches the ball, the ball has backcourt status again.

B. I am torn what to call here. When the passed ball bounces in front court, did you end the ten second count? If so, you are judging the ball obtained front court status and that there is no player control - meaning a dribble has not started. If the dribble has not started, the three points rule does not apply. Can A1 still legally dribble that ball? Yes, but did his dribble officially begin when he passed the ball? I think no. So the ball status between the time A1 passed the ball and the time he started dribbling a loose ball becomes important. However, if you kept the ten second count on after A1 released the ball and the ball bounced in front court, then you seem to be ruling that the released ball was the start of a dribble. Then all the issues pertaining to the location of the ball and the feet of the dribbler come into play.

The question isn't whether you stopped your count, but whether or not you should stop your count.

Why should I modify my stance? I'm clearly a "tenant" of the rules! :) I live within them. :D

And yes that is the spelling used by the NFHS.

Just as we can judge a ball hitting the backboard either a try or a pass and as we can judge an airball a try or not, I think we have to judge the release by A1 a pass or the start of the dribble. It is important to make that judgement in this case because that will determine the status of the ball. Rule 4-4 tells the definition of the location of the ball and 4-4-6 talks of the "three points" rule: "During a dribble from backcourt to frontcourt, the ball is in the frontcourt when the ball and both feet of the dribbler touch the court entirely in the frontcourt."

Based on the original question calling the release of the ball by A1 "a pass" then I think we have to end the 10 second count and the ball changing front and back court status now has meaning. So when A1 begins dribbling, he begins dribbling ball that was previously "a loose ball", not a continuation of "a start of a dribble." So, the more I think about it, I am leaning toward calling it a violation.

Did you notice that A2 threw the pass, but A4 is the one who eventually received it?
You are applying 9-9-2 to the team, when the rule is clearly written for "a player."
Also, you can't apply 9-9-1 since no player touched the ball in the frontcourt and that is part of that rule.

So my point is that if the play is not a violation under either of those two articles, what justification is there for calling one?

Here I am to add a new twist!

...It's an interrupted dribble since it's not immediately under A1's control. Thus, it's a backcourt violation. (Other interrupted dribble cases treat the interruption as if there is no dribble...PC/common foul, OOB, etc.).

The whole purpose of the rule require the offensive team to keep the ball in the frontcourt once they get it there unless the defensive team causes it to go into the backcourt.

Yabut....
The rule's purpose is not to penalize the player for what amounts to an official's error (being in the way of the pass). If you have to resort to purpose of the rule here to call the violation, I think you have to pass.

Yabut...be careful about using this way of thinking about the play. Are you 100% sure it was the official's fault for getting in the way? Are you 100% sure the player didn't aim it at the official? If the official was standing OOB instead of the front court, would you also use the same criteria?

Now, I did find case play 4.4.4(b) that addresses this very play. And it refers to 9-9-2.

Good find.

It's not a twist. It's the correct interpretation(except in SillyMonkey Land).

Crazy,

If you read the FIBA rules on a backcourt violation, it says there must be team control, it does not necessarily say team control in the front court. This would be a violation in FIBA.

It's not the same, since in the play under discussion it's A4 that caught the ball, and in the case play it's A2. You can't just interpret these rules any old way you want to, Jim, you have to apply them as literally written. Sheez...

Why? That is the correct spelling of the word "tenants." :p

Hey, this is my game, I'm in charge you see. I will define which player is A2, and I will define which player is A4. Therefore, it's my call, it's all about me. A wise man once said, "the ref makes the call." And you know what, she was right. Now quit drinking that Kook-Aid that JR spiked....

Very nice, sir. Now that makes it clear how the NFHS wants this play called. Now all they have to do is amended 9-9-2 to match the casebook play, since the current 9-9-2 doesn't contain the word "teammate."


9-9-2 ... 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.

4.4.4 SITUATION: The official is in Team A's frontcourt when he/she is contacted by a pass thrown by A1 from Team A's backcourt. After touching the official, the ball: (a) goes out of bounds; or (b) rebounds to the backcourt where it is recovered by A2. RULING: Touching the official is the same as touching the floor where the official is standing. In (a), the ball is awarded to B for a throw-in. In (b), the ball has been in the frontcourt and then has gone to the backcourt while in Team A's control. It is a violation for A1 to cause the ball to go from A's backcourt to frontcourt and return to backcourt untouched if A1 or a teammate is first to touch it after it has returned to backcourt. (9-9-2)

Now can you find anything for my other scenario which tests the words "in the backcourt" in 9-9-1?

WOW...great discussion...didn't know my little question would get so much play! Glad that we can discuss this stuff and get some GOOD answers! :)

If anyone has a copy of the case book handy, doesn't it state somewhere that in the event of an apparent disagreement between the rule book and the case book that the case book interpretation takes precedence? Doesn't it also state that the case book is considered part of the rulebook?

At the front of the case book is the following statement:
<i>"The basketball case book has been designated as an official supplement to the rule book by the NFHS"</i> It also states <i>"The interpretations and rulings for all play situations have been approved by the rules committee and are official."</i>

So, case book plays are basically just further official explanations of written rules. All case book plays are official rules, no matter what Nevada says, thinks, personally likes, etc.