Backcourt violation?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I don't know if it fits in every circumstance, but someone somewhere on this board once said, "You are where you were until you get where you're going."

C'mon now, that doesn't scan. Try it aloud: "you ARE where you WERE till you GET where you're GOING."

There, isn't that better?

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by kblehman

I've had debates about this play, too, and I haven't yet seen an explanation in this thread. Is it because A1's last established position was in the backcourt and had not yet established position in the frontcourt?

Think of it this way:
You are where you are until you get where you're going.

The location of an airborne player is determined by where they last touched the court before becoming airborne. There are 3 elements to a BC violation, team control, last touched in front court by team with control, first touched in back court by team with control. In the case presented, team control by A was clearly established, the ball gained front court status when caught by A2 in front court, was last touched in front court by A2 when they passed it back to A1, and first touched in back court by A1 who still had back court status. Hence all 3 elements are satisfied & you have a BC violation.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

There are 3 elements to a BC violation, team control, last touched in front court by team with control, first touched in back court by team with control.

Actually, first touched by team in control after gaining backcourt status. It is not necessary that the actual touch be in the backcourt.

Situation the other night: GV Throw-in from the frontcourt end line over everyone's head. It bounced a couple of times and A1 grabbed it right at the division line, in frontcourt, but she lost her balance. As she tumbled into backcourt, she dropped the ball, which bounced on the line two or three times, then trickled back into frontcourt. She stepped back into frontcourt and picked up the ball. I called the violation, expecting a big negative reaction from the coach, but there was none.

[kblehman]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Actually, first touched by team in control after gaining backcourt status. It is not necessary that the actual touch be in the backcourt.

Situation the other night: GV Throw-in from the frontcourt end line over everyone's head. It bounced a couple of times and A1 grabbed it right at the division line, in frontcourt, but she lost her balance. As she tumbled into backcourt, she dropped the ball, which bounced on the line two or three times, then trickled back into frontcourt. She stepped back into frontcourt and picked up the ball. I called the violation...

Excellent situation and clarification!

So it didn't matter that it was the same player who picked it up? If her teammate would've touched it first, it was still a BC violation?

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by just another ref

[/COLOR]

Situation the other night: GV Throw-in from the frontcourt end line over everyone's head. It bounced a couple of times and A1 grabbed it right at the division line, in frontcourt, but she lost her balance. As she tumbled into backcourt, she dropped the ball, which bounced on the line two or three times, then trickled back into frontcourt. She stepped back into frontcourt and picked up the ball. I called the violation, expecting a big negative reaction from the coach, but there was none.

HTBT but, I would have played the "she was falling and didn't have control of the ball yet" card.

If she would have fell WITH the ball, I would have accepted a travel.

[Freddy]

Mark wrote: Freddy - I'd be interested in knowing why you had to ask. What was causing doubt? Please note - this is not a criticism, just trying to find out why some officials aren't sure of this rule. Thanks.
__________________

I called it a violation firmly and confidently. A veteran coach who typically questions no calls ever loudly yelled, "You got that one wrong!" Not enough to make me doubt my call, but enough to go to the rulebook and casebook when I got home to confirm my confidence. The rulebook is clear on the matter in its own confusing way. The casebook doesn't bring up a situation like that. So, in summary, it's a situation where I am confident as to the rule, but was just confirming it through the guys/girls on the webring. Like I like to think, "There's a fine line between confidence and cockiness." I want to pursue the former without lapsing into the latter. That's why this webring is a significant help to me.