Case Book Question

[PIAA REF]

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?

[jdw3018]

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

9.9.1 Sit D

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

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

Including this one, which I started a couple months ago: BktBallRef was right!! (Sorry, Nevada)

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

[joseph2493]

Originally Posted by PIAA REF

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?

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

Originally Posted by joseph2493

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.

[joseph2493]

Originally Posted by PYRef

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

[rngrck]

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?

[jdw3018]

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.

[Bearfanmike20]

Originally Posted by PIAA REF

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?

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.

[joseph2493]

Originally Posted by Bearfanmike20

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...

[Ref in PA]

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").

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Ref in PA

I think the NFHS kicked this interpretation.

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 not ignore rule 9-9-3. The interpretation is telling you that rule 9-9-3 is NOT applicable because 9-9-3 is an exception that only applies during a throw-in. They are simply telling you that 9-9-3 does not apply after a throw-in has ended.

The key "funny" words are "during a throw-in".

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

The key "funny" words are "during a throw-in".

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?

[Ref in PA]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

The key "funny" words are "during a throw-in".

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.