Situation 10 still bothers me.

[Camron Rust]

This situation is simply wrong. We've debated it here before and it is in direct contradiction with the rule....where team a must be the first to touch after it goes into the back court and also the last to touch before it went to the backcourt. The rule is quite clear and has been unchanged for decades. Nowhere in any rule does it say that it is a violation to cause the ball to have backcourt status.

Your examples show the absurdity of interpretation that sit. #10 suggests.


Furthermore, consider this additional case (inspired by yours):

4. A1, dribbling in the backcourt near the division line is guarded by B1 who is completely in frontcourt. B1 reaches and touches the ball between dribbles (ball on the way back up ) but not enough to prevent A1 from continuing the dribble. A1 continues to dribble (while still in the backcourt). Violation???

When B1 touched the ball it gains FC status. When A1 again touches the ball on the next dribble, it gained BC status. To be consistent with situation 10, this would have to be a violation on A1 since A1 caused the ball to have BC status.

Does ANYONE here think that this is REALLY what is intended? That B1 could force a turnover by merely touching the ball from across the division line while A1 is dribbling it??? That is what situation 10 implies. Again, situation 10 is simply wrong.

I expect a correction to come on on this situation. It may not come this year...but it will come.

[Ref in PA]

Altor,

Team A is under no requirement to "establish control" in frontcourt. Team control is already established. When the ball touches another player or the court in frontcourt, the ball then has frontcourt status, with Team A having team control. Just read situation 10 over again. Team A never "establishes control" in the front court, but they never lost team control because the ball was not shot, controled by team B or went oob. Yet the fed wants us to call a BC violation.

In all of my examples team control was never relenquished by team A. The touch of the ball by B1, who is if frontcourt, give the ball frontcourt status. So, after the touch by B1 and the ball is in the air, there is still team control by team A and the ball has frontcourt status. However, B1 was the last to touch the ball.

When A1 touches the ball in back court, the Fed is asking us to call the violation unless the ball has bounced first in the backcourt - which I think is an unusual stance to take, especially given the other examples of how that can happen.

[Altor]

You are correct. I just read 4-12. I didn't realize that team control continued through loose ball situations.

You'll have to excuse me, I'm not a BK official. I just like learning more about the various rules and idiosyncrasies about various sports. I'll go back to lurking now.

[Bearfanmike20]

If A1 is in the front court.. and is passing to A2.. and B1 hits it but doesn't secure control and A2 goes and secures it in the BC...

My interpretation is that it is a BC violation. B1 never secured control so pos was with team A.

Now.. If A2 started to Dribble and B1 knocked it away then it would be loose ball and A2 can go and secure it.

Right??..

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Bearfanmike20

If A2 started to Dribble and B1 knocked it away then it would be loose ball and A2 can go and secure it.

Right??..

Team control continues during this loose ball.

[Bearfanmike20]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Team control continues during this loose ball.

So this too is a BC violation.. K.. I had it wrong.

[Ref in PA]

Originally Posted by Bearfanmike20

If A1 is in the front court.. and is passing to A2.. and B1 hits it but doesn't secure control and A2 goes and secures it in the BC...

My interpretation is that it is a BC violation. B1 never secured control so pos was with team A.

Now.. If A2 started to Dribble and B1 knocked it away then it would be loose ball and A2 can go and secure it.

Right??..

In your first sitch, A1 in frontcourt, passing a ball ... you have Team A in control with the ball having frontcourt status. B1 deflects the ball ... team A still in control but now team B was the last to touch the ball. A2 then goes and secures it in back court. If the ball has bounced in back court after the deflection, the ball now has backcourt status and anyone can secure the ball legally - of that situation there is no debate. It is when A2, who is standing in backcourt touches the ball deflected by B1 before the ball has bounced in backcourt that has us scratching our heads - at least me.

In your second situation, more information is needed about the location of players.

[Bearfanmike20]

Originally Posted by Ref in PA

In your first sitch, A1 in frontcourt, passing a ball ... you have Team A in control with the ball having frontcourt status. B1 deflects the ball ... team A still in control but now team B was the last to touch the ball. A2 then goes and secures it in back court. If the ball has bounced in back court after the deflection, the ball now has backcourt status and anyone can secure the ball legally - of that situation there is no debate. It is when A2, who is standing in backcourt touches the ball deflected by B1 before the ball has bounced in backcourt that has us scratching our heads - at least me.

In your second situation, more information is needed about the location of players.

Is it just me or do situations like this make more sense when you are actually witnessing it on the court...

The whole A1 and A1.. none of it does justice for me. I'm a visual guy. LOL

[David]

I have to cast my vote with Camron on this. The Situation 10 interpretation is just plain wrong.

In Situation 6, A2 is in the air with front court status when he/she catches the ball. That meets the 9-9-1 requirement that a team must be the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt and the first to touch it in the backcourt. A2 meets both requirements just before and just after landing in backcourt.

In Situation 10, even though A2 causes the ball to have backcourt status and team A had team control and the ball had front court status, team A is not the last to touch the ball in the front court, B1 is.

Rule 9-9-2 doesn't apply to this situation because it includes the statement "without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt".

[Splute]

Originally Posted by David

I have to cast my vote with Camron on this. The Situation 10 interpretation is just plain wrong.

In Situation 6, A2 is in the air with front court status when he/she catches the ball. That meets the 9-9-1 requirement that a team must be the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt and the first to touch it in the backcourt. A2 meets both requirements just before and just after landing in backcourt.

In Situation 10, even though A2 causes the ball to have backcourt status and team A had team control and the ball had front court status, team A is not the last to touch the ball in the front court, B1 is.

Rule 9-9-2 doesn't apply to this situation because it includes the statement "without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt".

I disagree. A2 is the last to touch the ball in front court. Per your statement here, A2 has front court status, the ball has front court status and then A2 grabs the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt. A2 caused the ball to have backcourt status by coming down with it in the backcourt. It should be a violation. If A2 lets it bounce in the backcourt after B1 deflects, it is not a backcourt violation because B1 caused it to gains backcourt status.
Furthermore I do not believe a pass from A1 (backcourt), deflected by B1 (frontcourt) and then touching A1 again in backcourt causes a backcourt violation because of the 9-9-1 rule.