Backcourt AGAIN
 

I know... I know... why is this coming up again? (I searched & couldn't find this particular sitch)

A2 (in the frontcourt) passes the ball to A3, B2 deflects the pass towards the backcourt. Just before the ball strikes the floor in the backcourt A2 recovers the ball standing in the backcourt... violation, right??

Had A1 let the ball go into the backcourt by striking the floor first, then the defense caused the ball to go into the backcourt thus no violation, right??

I felt like I was the only one in the gym who had a clue... my "partner" even sided with the very knowledgable coach & fans because he saw the tip too.
Of course this was our 1st of 4 games together yesterday & I never could find the proof to defend that call.

Rules references & casebook play please.

The deflection by B2 does not end A's team control of the ball in the frontcourt. A last touched the ball in the frontcourt, then was the first to touch it in the backcourt. No specific exceptions apply to the play. Either I'm missing something or this is not a difficult play.

No you aren't missing anything at all and while it may be a no-brainer to you, me & other members of the board I just want the proof, preferably a casebook play.

I know it's New Years Eve in Vegas but where's Nevada @ when you need him?

Hrm.
 

A2's pass was deflected by B2 towards the backcourt.

Therefore B2 was the last to touch in the frontcourt, correct?

Why would a recovery by A2 in the backcourt be a violation?

The key word is towards. Not into but towards the backcourt.

The confusion comes in b/c team A may believe that since the ball is tipped by B towards the BC and they (team A) are standing in the BC when they recover the ball, the ball was caused to get to that point by team B, therefore no BC violation...HOWEVER, we as officials know that since the ball still has the same status as it had when last in contact with a player or the floor, it is still in the FC until A1 "causes" it to go to the BC when A1 catches it in the BC. I thought there was this specific caseplay this year, but I can't find it either...

FED 2007 Interps, #10 (I think).

Many /most of us here think the interp is incorrect and that this should not be a violation.

I changed the backcourt to "Out of Bounds" in your sitch. It helps me make sense of the rule.

And I agree with some, A2 seems to be penalized in some sort of way because of his/her hustle to get the deflected B2 pass. If he/she waits for it to bounce, B2 does not have to amnd may continue on with a steal.

Thanks Bob. I wouldn't have believed it if I didn't read it with my own eyes.

SITUATION 10: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1; 4-4-3; 9-9-1)


"Remember this, men," said the Coach A before the big game, "I need you to go hard for all tipped balls and all loose balls! Except, of course, if B1 tips our Team Controlled ball over the division line but not onto the backcourt yet, in which case we wait around and watch the cheerleaders until the ball touches the backcourt, then go like heck for it! Got that?"

There it is, thank you sir!

Just the proof I needed to send my partner.

Why whould anybody believe that to be wrong? As CoachP substitutes OOB for backcourt... everything sounds correct.

It's been discussed ad nauseum, but it's a violation to cause the ball to go OOB, it's not a violation to cause the ball to go BC. It's only a violation to be the first to touch AFTER it goes to the BC.

How about a proposal of re-wording it to say "after or simultaneously"?
It seems to me as though the player was first to touch while causing BC staus at the same time.

You are correct. It's similar to the jumper catching the ball violation. It's all a matter of interp. The current interp is a violation on A and I don't see it changing.

This is good, in a way, to get the point across. But the huge difference is, that if you catch the ball while standing OOB, it makes no difference who tipped it, who threw it, or who otherwise touched it last.