Over and Back?

[curtstrouth]

Team A has the ball for a throw-in in their front court. A1 throws the ball to A2 who tips/muffs the ball and it goes into team A's backcourt. A2 is the first to touch the ball. Is this over and back?

[BEAREF]

Legal play...no violation

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by curtstrouth

Team A has the ball for a throw-in in their front court. A1 throws the ball to A2 who tips/muffs the ball and it goes into team A's backcourt. A2 is the first to touch the ball. Is this over and back?

No

[Mark Padgett]

Here's the skinny. One of the four requirements for a back court violation is team control. There is no team control during a throw-in. During a period of no team control, team control is established by a player establishing player control. Player control is defined as holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds. A2 tipping the ball is not the same as holding or dribbling it, therefore no player control established, therefore no team control established, therefore no violation.

I can get into more detail if you want.

[Jurassic Referee]

NFHS case book play 4.12.6(b)

[rgncjn]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Here's the skinny. One of the four requirements for a back court violation is team control. There is no team control during a throw-in. During a period of no team control, team control is established by a player establishing player control. Player control is defined as holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds. A2 tipping the ball is not the same as holding or dribbling it, therefore no player control established, therefore no team control established, therefore no violation.

I can get into more detail if you want.

I am well aware that no violation occurred, but that is probably the best explanation I have heard.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by rgncjn

I am well aware that no violation occurred, but that is probably the best explanation I have heard.

Just remember the four requirements to have a back court violation. If all four are present, you have a violation. If even one is missing, you don't.

1) there must be team control
2) the ball must have achieved front court status
3) the team in control must be the last team to touch the ball in front court
4) that same team must be the first to touch the ball after it has been in the back court (even if it returned to front court "under it's own power", like a reverse spin or maybe it hit an official who is standing in the back court)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Just remember the four requirements to have a back court violation. If all four are present, you have a violation. If even one is missing, you don't.

1) there must be team control
2) the ball must have achieved front court status
3) the team in control must be the last team to touch the ball in front court
4) that same team must be the first to touch the ball after it has been in the back court (even if it returned to front court "under it's own power", like a reverse spin or maybe it hit an official who is standing in the back court)

Not exactly. #3 is not required based on the interp this year that states it's a violation if B is the last to touch the ball in the FC, but A1 touches the ball while standing in the BC before the ball bounces in the BC. For that interp to be accurate, #3 needs to be amended.

[jdw3018]

I'm thinking rather than:

3) the team in control must be the last team to touch the ball in front court

we could go with:

3) the team in control must be the last team to touch the ball with front court status.

Since in the interp A catches the ball while it still has frontcourt status, and at that time causes it to have backcourt status.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Not exactly. #3 is not required based on the interp this year that states it's a violation if B is the last to touch the ball in the FC, but A1 touches the ball while standing in the BC before the ball bounces in the BC. For that interp to be accurate, #3 needs to be amended.

Actually, that's never been one of the criteria. there's "always" been a case play where A1 passes the ball from the backcourt, the ball hits a referee in the front court and rebounds to the backcourt where A1 recovers tha ball. This has "always" been a violation.

The criteria used to be:

3) A is the last to touch before the ball goes to the back court.

Now, it seems to be A is the last to touch "as or before" the ball goes to the backcourt

[sixer]

I still say that the back-court interp is wrong with A catching the ball that B deflected. The rule about being the last to touch it in the front court is not ambiguous. Whoever's in charge of doing the interp on that one is using something other than the rule book to come up with an answer. Why did we even need an interp on this in the first place?

On another thread, I indicated that this puts A at a competitive disadvantage. B deflects the pass and is the only one that can touch it before it hits the ground in the back court? So if they're both chasing it, B gets first crack at it? There is no violation that A is trying to avoid as there would be if say A releases a pass and tries to recover it before it touches another player. In the backcourt situation, what are we saying, that A should throw a better pass that doesn't get deflected?

I don't like it.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by sixer

I still say that the back-court interp is wrong with A catching the ball that B deflected. The rule about being the last to touch it in the front court is not ambiguous. Whoever's in charge of doing the interp on that one is using something other than the rule book to come up with an answer. Why did we even need an interp on this in the first place?

On another thread, I indicated that this puts A at a competitive disadvantage. B deflects the pass and is the only one that can touch it before it hits the ground in the back court? So if they're both chasing it, B gets first crack at it? There is no violation that A is trying to avoid as there would be if say A releases a pass and tries to recover it before it touches another player. In the backcourt situation, what are we saying, that A should throw a better pass that doesn't get deflected?

I don't like it.

[phansen]

According to the new rule, the throw-in ends when the ball is legally touched. (The tip by B) However there is no description from the time the throw-in ends until the time the ball is possessed or controlled by a team.

On pg 73 of the rulebook #1 it says that while a ball remains live, a loose ball is always in control of a team whose player last had control. #2 states there is no player or team control on the throw-in.

If the ball is live, it must be in control of a team according to the fundamental rules stated. The new rule about the throw in ending on a legal touch may be good but it created a new problem about control and possession. I don't think #99 should be over and back, but according to the new rules it is

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by phansen

According to the new rule, the throw-in ends when the ball is legally touched. (The tip by B) However there is no description from the time the throw-in ends until the time the ball is possessed or controlled by a team.

Player and team control are established on a throw-in when a player is holding or dribbling the ball inbounds, as per NFHS rule 4-12-1. That description has been in the rule book forever.

An airborne player has the same status as when that player was last in contact with the floor. That's rule 4-35-3. Therefore an airborne player catching the ball after jumping from the front court has front court status. Catching the ball in mid-air then also establishes player and team control in the frontcourt. If the exception in rule 9-9-3 doesn't apply because the throw-in has ended, then it's a violation for that airborne player holding the ball to land in the backcourt, under rule 9-9-1.

Follow the bouncing ball.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by phansen

If the ball is live, it must be in control of a team according to the fundamental rules stated.

Which fundamental is this?