Over and back??
 

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.

He was. The tip by white is irrelevant. Blue could have caught the pass in their backcourt with no violation.

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.

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.

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... :o

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.

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.

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?

Not a violation, so B doesn't get to take the ball out.

I had this the other night and missed it. Partner, rightly, let me live with it and hear it from the coach. I won't miss that again.

How about this? A1 dribbling in his/her backcourt passes to A2 in the frontcourt who immediatly passes back to A1 who now has stepped one foot into frontcourt and has the other foot in the air?

I read that the player has court status based on where he/she is touching or last touched the floor. Therefore, legal play.

I get two different answers from others. Some say A1 has to have two feet in front court to establish status. I can't find the reference to the number of feet, only where the player is touching.

By the way, the four points are: the ball must have frontcourt status, team control must be established, offense is the last to touch in front court and the first to touch in the back...right?

Those folks are wrong. :)

Your rule reference is 4-35-1&2.

Absolutely legal based on your description. The player has frontcourt status is anything is touching frontcourt and nothing is touching backcourt.

Those four points would qualify a backcourt violation.

The third point should be last to touch before the ball goes into the backcourt after being in the frontcourt. The ball does not need to ever be touched in the frontcourt for a backcourt violation.

Example: A1, who is standing in the backcourt, throws a pass with spin that bounces in the frontcourt and is caught by A2, who is also standing in the backcourt. This is a violation.

Similarly, the fourth point should be first to touch after the ball goes into the backcourt after being in the frontcourt.

Example: A1, who is standing in the frontcourt, throws a pass with spin that bounces in the backcourt and is caught by A2, who is also standing in the frontcourt. This is a violation.

Care to check the wording of the text on that one? ;)

I don't get it. What's wrong with his/her example?

Go check the SPECIFIC words used in the text and you'll see.

Is your issue that I said "the backcourt" instead of "his/her backcourt"? Otherwise, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Nope, my issue is A2.

OK, then, I have no idea what you're talking about.

We both agree that 9-9-1 doesn't apply to your scenario since that requires a touch in the frontcourt. Therefore, if the play is to be a violation it must be due to 9-9-2.

Here's the text of 9-9-2: "While in team control in its backcourt, a player shall not cause the ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt and return to backcourt, without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt, and be the first to touch it in the backcourt."

The words "or a teammate" do not appear in that article as they do in the first one.

Ah. I forgot that NFHS wording on the backcourt rule was different from NCAA.

I should have a tag-line that says that all of my posts are based on NCAA rules, which is what we use here in NY for girls HS ball.

I don't know if the NFHS intends for your play to be a violation or not, but I do know that by the specific wording of the rule it is not. If the NFHS wishes to correct that, then they need to change the wording of the rule to something such as ""When a player, while in team control in his/her backcourt, causes the ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt and return to backcourt, without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt, he/she or a teammate shall not be the first to touch it."

See the difference? :)

Or maybe instead of changing the rule, they can issue a case book play explaining the rule.

Wait, they've already done that. It's called casebook play 4.4.4(b). That states <i>"It is a violation for A1 to cause the ball to go from A's backcourt to frontcourt and return to backcourt untouched if A1 <b>or a teammate</b> is the first to touch it after it has returned to backcourt."</i> Rule 9-9-2 is cited as the rules reference.

my mind is getting warped but these have been helpful i think. but i know i've seen this one...Fantasy Football playoffs being today!!!!

is this backcourt- a1 in frontcourt passes the ball and a2 from backcourt jumps up catches the ball in air and lands in the frontcourt. I think it is a backcourt violation. I know it's legal in a inbounds situation.

backcourt violation when A2 catches the ball.

I think you may be getting the inbounds exception involving A2 jumping from the frontcourt and landing in the backcourt (not the other way around) mixed up with this situation, which is much more simple.

The key here is that A1 is in the frontcourt and A2 is in the backcourt (you are where you were...) when he/she catches the ball. That's the violation right there. It would be no different if A2 were standing in the backcourt.