|
Mon Jan 31, 2000, 05:40pm
|
|||
|
|||
Had this over the weekend. Three man crew, high school boys varsity, both teams 7-0 in their conference. Score tied 59-59, 1:03 left in the game. Packed house. Home team A inbounds the ball to A-1 in A's backcourt after a made free throw by B. A-1 in the backcourt throws a pass, across the division line intended for A-2 in the frontcourt. B-1 in A's frontcourt deflects (not catches or controls) the ball. The ball hits A-3 who is standing in A's frontcourt in the leg and goes into the backcourt where it is recovered by A-1. I was the "C" at the division line (table side) nearest to A-3 and saw the whole play. I called a backcourt violation. Needless to say, home team coach goes ballistic!!! Not to mention the fans. Coach immediately called timeout and after I perplexed him with an explanation, the game went on. As usual in these situations, visiting team goes on to win 63-59.
In the locker room afterwards, my partners and I were discussing the play and one of partners thought it was a great call and the other (25 year veteran) felt that even though team control for A was established in the backcourt, there was no frontcourt control by A, therefore this should not have been a backcourt violation even though he admitted A-3 was the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt. He went on to say he believes this because Team Control ended when B deflected the ball. He was pretty adamant that this should not have been a backcourt violation. I have read and re-read rule 4-12 (all articles) and rule 9-9 and casebook 9.9E over and over and I am pretty confident team control did not end with B's touching and the call was right. What do you think? 
|
|
Mon Jan 31, 2000, 06:09pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think you made a great, clutch (and gutsy) call! You were absolutely right--the touching by player B did not end A's team control. The Rules and Case books are very clear on this situation, even though it was a real bummer for team A. Had the call not been made (some officials would pass on it because of it's great significance at that moment and "swallow" their whistle), you can be almost certain the OTHER coach would have gone ballistic. You did what you had to do. What a great game to work! I love doing those.
|
|
Mon Jan 31, 2000, 06:15pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
That is right, team control does not end until the defence secures control of the ball. It is just an unfortunate thing to happen. It is almost the same thing as the ball striking an official and then going into the backcourt. I said "almost" guys, I dont want to start a fire. : )
|
|
Mon Jan 31, 2000, 06:45pm
|
|||
|
|||
Of course you made the correct call. There is a myth that one of the four elements necessary for an "over and back" call is that there must be team control "in the frontcourt", whatever that means.
As I've stated before, the four elements are: 1) there must be team control 2) the ball must have achieved frontcourt status 3) the team in team control must be the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt 4) that same team must be the first to touch after the ball has been in the backcourt All four elements were there in your case. As stated above, there was no loss of team control by A. You can only lose team control one of three ways: 1) there is a try or tap for goal 2) there is a dead ball 3) the other team gains team control Now - why didn't B gain team control when the ball deflected off B1? Because you can only gain team control when you don't have it by one of your players gaining player control. Player control is defined by a player holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds. B1 did neither, therefore no player control for B1, therefore no team control for B, therefore no loss of team control for A, therefore you have a violation by team A. And that's my final answer. 
|
|
Tue Feb 01, 2000, 09:35am
|
|||
|
|||
quote: Good to hear from you Mark, I thought you had died.
|
|
Tue Feb 01, 2000, 02:13pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Had this over the weekend. Three man crew, high school boys varsity, both teams 7-0 in their conference. Score tied 59-59, 1:03 left in the game. Packed house. Home team A inbounds the ball to A-1 in A's backcourt after a made free throw by B. A-1 in the backcourt throws a pass, across the division line intended for A-2 in the frontcourt. B-1 in A's frontcourt deflects (not catches or controls) the ball. The ball hits A-3 who is standing in A's frontcourt in the leg and goes into the backcourt where it is recovered by A-1. I was the "C" at the division line (table side) nearest to A-3 and saw the whole play. I called a backcourt violation. Needless to say, home team coach goes ballistic!!! Not to mention the fans. Coach immediately called timeout and after I perplexed him with an explanation, the game went on. As usual in these situations, visiting team goes on to win 63-59.
In the locker room afterwards, my partners and I were discussing the play and one of partners thought it was a great call and the other (25 year veteran) felt that even though team control for A was established in the backcourt, there was no frontcourt control by A, therefore this should not have been a backcourt violation even though he admitted A-3 was the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt. He went on to say he believes this because Team Control ended when B deflected the ball. He was pretty adamant that this should not have been a backcourt violation. I have read and re-read rule 4-12 (all articles) and rule 9-9 and casebook 9.9E over and over and I am pretty confident team control did not end with B's touching and the call was right. What do you think? Look in the case book section 9.9C reads: Team A is in control in its backcourt for seven seconds. A1 throws the ball toward A2 in the frontcourt. B1 jumps from A's front court and while in the air bats the ball back to A1 in A's backcourt. Ruling: A new count starts because B1 had frontcourt location when touching the ball thus giving the ball frountcourt location. Is this the same as the above and give them a fresh 10 seconds. Joe
|
|
Tue Feb 01, 2000, 03:06pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Look in the case book section 9.9C reads:
Team A is in control in its backcourt for seven seconds. A1 throws the ball toward A2 in the frontcourt. B1 jumps from A's front court and while in the air bats the ball back to A1 in A's backcourt. Ruling: A new count starts because B1 had frontcourt location when touching the ball thus giving the ball frountcourt location. Is this the same as the above and give them a fresh 10 seconds. No, the difference is that in Walt's play the ball hit off A3 in the frontcourt before going to the backcourt, not a Team B player. Thus, if you look over the four criteria that Mark listed, you will see that this was indeed a backcourt violation. Had frontcourt B1 batted the ball directly into the backcourt, a fresh 10-second count should start as soon as the ball achieves backcourt status...
|
|
Tue Feb 01, 2000, 08:18pm
|
|||
|
|||
quote: Actually, I had. Now I'm just visiting from another reality  Seriously, I haven't had much time to logon. I had 64 games in January and only had three days with no games (Jan 1, Jan 17 and another night on which I had a rec league board meeting). So far in February, I have 48 games scheduled and haven't received my schedule for the last two weeks yet. I'm sure I'll have over 70 games this month. Of course, I do it just for my love of working with the coaches.
|
|
Sat Feb 12, 2000, 05:08am
|
|||
|
|||
|
SSrunner, Team A has team control. once the ball touches a player in front court, we have front court status. The key to many rules is "team control" This is a back court violation.
|
|
Sat Feb 12, 2000, 05:15am
|
|||
|
|||
quote: By rule, frontcourt "control" per se is not required here. If a player from team A, after having team control (whether in the frontcourt or backcourt), was the last person to TOUCH or be TOUCHED BY the ball in the frontcourt, no player from team A can be the first to touch the ball if it then goes into the backcourt. Thus, if a dribbler in the backcourt passes to a frontcourt teammate with no "hands" and the ball hits his leg and returns to the backcourt, team A can't touch it before team B does.
|
|
Sat Feb 12, 2000, 05:18am
|
|||
|
|||
quote: A does not need to establish frontcourt control. A must have team control and the ball must obtain frontcourt status, which it did in this case.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
