Over and back??

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Bearfanmike20

Blue ball on the inbound from their own end line.

Blue inbounds.. its tipped by white in the front court and Blue 2 runs down the ball in the back court.

I call over and back. Senior official over rules me on it and sais its a legal and awards ball to blue on the side line.

Who was right??

ps.. he didn't show me up or anthing like that. He came over and we confered and he said it was a legal play. I defered to him as I'm just a rook.

The senior official was correct.

What are the four (or three, depending on how they are worded) requirements for a BC violation? Which were not met?

(And, I have to add, although it's not only directed at you: You might try looking some of these situations up in the rules and case books, and then ask a clarifying question. Not only will you get the answer to the specific question, you'll likely find some nuances to the play that you didn't know, and maybe even find something completely unrelated to the play that will help you out.)

[Bearfanmike20]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The senior official was correct.

What are the four (or three, depending on how they are worded) requirements for a BC violation? Which were not met?

(And, I have to add, although it's not only directed at you: You might try looking some of these situations up in the rules and case books, and then ask a clarifying question. Not only will you get the answer to the specific question, you'll likely find some nuances to the play that you didn't know, and maybe even find something completely unrelated to the play that will help you out.)

Ya.. I think I'm going to read the book again.

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Bearfanmike20

Ya.. I think I'm going to read the book again.

Do you think you might have been confusing this situation with the new CB play that we have seen this year where A is inbounding, B1 tips and A2 jumps from FC to BC, catching the ball in the air and landing BC? THAT is a violation, but the kicker there is that A2 had FC status, caught the ball after the throw-in had ended on the tip of B1, and landed in the backcourt, thus over and back...difference in your play is (I assume) that B just chased the ball down in the backcourt, meaning he/she did not have FC status before obtaining posession...

[Bearfanmike20]

Originally Posted by kbilla

Do you think you might have been confusing this situation with the new CB play that we have seen this year where A is inbounding, B1 tips and A2 jumps from FC to BC, catching the ball in the air and landing BC? THAT is a violation, but the kicker there is that A2 had FC status, caught the ball after the throw-in had ended on the tip of B1, and landed in the backcourt, thus over and back...difference in your play is (I assume) that B just chased the ball down in the backcourt, meaning he/she did not have FC status before obtaining posession...

Yes.. that is probably what I did.

[mbyron]

A1 to throw in, A2 jumps from FC to BC, catches the ball in the air, and lands in the BC.
1. If B1 tips the throw-in, this is a violation.
2. If no one tips the throw-in, this is not a violation.

I had trouble figuring out the rationale for this distinction, but I think I can explain it in simple terms now. The difference between 1 and 2 is that in 1 the throw-in has ended. Thus, A2 has FC status when he catches the ball. In 2, he does not have FC status (no status during the throw-in), hence no violation.

Maybe I'm the last to understand this subtle point...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I had trouble figuring out the rationale for this distinction, but I think I can explain it in simple terms now. The difference between 1 and 2 is that in 1 the throw-in has ended. Thus, A2 has FC status when he catches the ball. In 2, he does not have FC status (no status during the throw-in), hence no violation.

I'm glad you get the difference, but I think your reasoning is incorrect. It's simple, by basic rule, it's a violation. There is, however, an exception during a throwin allowing this play to be made. Once the throwin ends (the initial tip), the exception no longer applies.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I had trouble figuring out the rationale for this distinction, but I think I can explain it in simple terms now. The difference between 1 and 2 is that in 1 the throw-in has ended. Thus, A2 has FC status when he catches the ball. In 2, he does not have FC status (no status during the throw-in), hence no violation.

Maybe I'm the last to understand this subtle point...

Actually, players do have status during a throw-in. The rule is just written to give an exception in the case of an airborne player with frontcourt status catching the ball and landing in the backcourt.

To illustrate, if the airborne player A1 jumps from the frontcourt, catches the ball, and passes to A2 in the backcourt, it is a violation, because A1 had frontcourt status when catching the ball.

[Rizzo21]

How about this one: A1 is inbounding under his own basket. Tosses the ball towards the backcourt, A2, while in the frontcourt tips it and it goes to backcourt where A2 retrieves it.

If violation, where does B take out the ball?