Case Book Question
 

For those of you who may have missed this case scenerio what do you have (i will post the answer later)

Team A is awarded a throw-in near the division line. A1's throw-in is deflected by B1. A2 jumps from Team A's frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt.

What is the ruling?

This is a backcourt violation, and it's been discussed in several threads here.

9.9.1 Sit D

I think we went over this in great length another thread. I believe the Fed ruled this was a backcourt violation.

Including this one, which I started a couple months ago: http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=38126

Backcourt violation...B1's touching ended the throw in...

and the fact that A1 leaped from the FC to the BC and caught the ball in the air.

Obviously that had a little to play in the call :)

F/u question. Team A has throw in at div line to start the period. A1 throws to A2 who is in the back court. Is this a violation? How about in all other times when you have a div line throw in?

In NFHS the location of the throw-in does not matter. So, in your question, no it is not a violation. Team A can have a throw-in from under the basket in their frontcourt, throw the ball all the way to the other end of the court where A1 can catch the ball in the backcourt.

Without looking at any of the other replies...

Its a backcourt violation. He had front court status because he was established in the front court when he left his feet.

You are correct, but the key to remember is it is a violation because B1 touched the ball, had B1 not touched the ball you would have nothing...

I think the NFHS kicked this interpretation. Only the offensive situation made it into the case book (9.9.1 Sit D) but the NFHS posted the same situation only it is B2 doing the jumping and called it a violation (see situations 6 and 7 from this link: http://www.nfhs.org/web/2007/10/2007...s_interpr.aspx ).

The whole interpretation ignores 9-9-3 (those funny words "team not in control").

It might be more of a case of you not understanding the interpretation. The interpretation does <b>not</b> ignore rule 9-9-3. The interpretation is telling you that rule 9-9-3 is <b>NOT</b> applicable because 9-9-3 is an exception that <b>only</b> applies <b>during</b> a throw-in. They are simply telling you that 9-9-3 does not apply <b>after</b> a throw-in has ended.

The key "funny" words are "<b>during</b> a throw-in".

There was a pretty serious discussion here last year (maybe the year before) about this very play. Some considered the parenthetical examples (a defensive player, or duing a jump ball or throwin) were meant to be all-inclusive or mere expamples of times when a team would not be in control.

This is a crucial distinction, as it determines whether this play is a violation after the throwin is tipped, after the jump ball is touched by a non-jumper, or on a long rebound.

For full disclosure, I thought it was meant to show examples but not be all-inclusive. This year's NFHS interpretation clearly shows I was wrong, and it is meant to be all-inclusive.

Given that, imagine this play...


A1's throwing ball in. A2, in A's frontcourt, jumps to catch the ball but muff's it (throwin ends). Before landing, A2 is able to secure control of the ball. A2 lands in the backcourt. Violation?