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?

I would say no. This time because he has the protection of 9-9-3 as the player making the initial touch on the ball.

Just for clarification, the location of the throw-in does not matter in NCAA M or W, either.

Yes.

Great question, Camron!!! :)

Can see the merit for ruling either way. I don't believe that the NFHS envisioned this when writing about the throw-in ending and when the exception ends.

JR, lets take a look at the NFHS interps as posted on their web site, specifically 6 and 7, link: http://www.nfhs.org/web/2007/10/2007...s_interpr.aspx

“SITUATION 6: Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team's frontcourt. A1's throw-in is deflected by B1, who is applying direct pressure on A1. A2 jumps from the team's frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. The throw-in ends when it is legally touched by B1. When A2 gains possession/control in the air, he/she has frontcourt status. A backcourt violation has occurred when A2 lands in the backcourt. (9-9-1; 9-9-3)”

“SITUATION 7: Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team's backcourt (Team B's frontcourt). A1's throw-in is deflected by B1, who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from his/her frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team B. The throw-in ends with B1's deflection (legal touch). When B2 gains possession/ control in the air, he/she has frontcourt status. A backcourt violation has occurred when B2 lands in backcourt. (9-9-1; 9-9-3)”

These are essentially the same interpretation which does not allow for a member of either team to jump from thier respective front court, catch a ball, establish team control in the air and land in their back court.

Rule 9-9-3 reads:

“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 backcourt. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt.”

So you are saying that "throw in" trumps "defensive player" (also in parens) and "team in control?"

I cannot reconcile how the NFHS explains this as a valid interpretation with the way the current rule is written. Situation 7 especially makes no sense. There is no arguement that can be made that B2 is on the offensive team. I agree the throw-in ends on the touch. But there is no team control until the ball is secured by a player from either team.

Based on interp 7, a logical extrapolation would be: A1 in backcourt passes to A2 who is near the division line in front court. Team B is in a full court press. B2 leaps from Team A's backcourt (B's frontcourt) and intercepts the pass, then lands in Team A's frontcourt (B's backcourt). According to interp 7 that would be a violation. Tony is going to have to revise his Backcourt quiz.

Sorry, I think the NFHS made a mistake with these interps.

While I agree that I'd like to see the interps changed (and it's been discussed several time at lenght here), your example would still NOT be a violation. According to the NFHS (that is, as I read what the NFHS has written, I think the definition is:), the "defensive player" means "an opponent player of the team in control." In your example, there was a team in control (Team A), and so Team B was the defense, so the excpetion applies.

In Situation 7, there was no team control, so there was no offense.

Frankly, I'd like the see the exception be "anyone on a team not in cotrol (both teams if neither has control) can grab the ball in the air and land in the backcourt"

Bob,

Regardless of the way the interp and rule is written, do you really think the NFHS meant it that way? I would like to see the interp changed or the rule more plainly written. I guess I can see the logical argument supporting the interps, but it involves some assuming. While JR assumes the situations in parens and what they mean are the only cases where where one may leave their frontcourt, catch the ball and land in backcourt without violating, another may think the cases in parens are just a few examples of when a team is not in control (which to me seems to be more in spirit with the rule).

Keith

That's exactly the long, long, long discussion we had before the interps came out -- were the parentheticals a complete list or merely examples?

Given the interp, I think it's clear, even if it's not what I would have suggested.

Be that as it may, mistake or not, the FED has now made it clear that this is how the plays are to be called. Whether you or any of us disagree with the FED interpretation is simply moot.

Dem's the rules.

and that's what we're doing -- we're "mooting" it. ;)

Do I have to like it? ;)

Regarding your statement I've highlighted in red...they use "defense" in that manner here but I've cited other areas (in the past) where they consider a team on defense even when there is no team control. "Defense" has different meanings depending on context.....BAD, BAD, BAD!!!

I agree with you in that I'd prefer to see it changed to aply to anyone not on the team in control.

backcourt violation
 

I got this from the preseason guide 2007-08 Basketball NFHS referee.

Tittle Accepting the backcourt exceptions. play #5
As seen in the Playpic on page 11, Team A's player makes the throw-in to a teammate (in that case number 10) (witch is in the frontcourt). That player muffs the ball and it goes into the backcourt where it recovered by that player (A2) RULING: it is a legal play. NO CONTROL had been established by team A even though the player touched the ball in the frontcourt. No player or team control exists during a throw-in.

So I think is not a backcourt violation. cuz there wasn't team control yet.



Rey

I don't know what you are refering to when you say "is not a backcourt violation." If you mean the play in the pre-season guide, yiou are correct, and you have the correct reasoning. If you mean the OP in this thread, you are incorrect -- TC was established when A2 caught the ball.

I believe he's talking about CR's play where B doesn't end the throw-in, but A2 does on the muff, and than catches it while still airborne.