NCAA Backcourt Violation?

[bob jenkins]

NCAA Rules Only!

Play: A1 has the ball for a throw-in. A1 throws the ball to A2 who jumps from his frontcourt, catches the ball in the air, then throws the ball to A3, who is standing in the backcourt.

Ruling: ?

If you say it's legal, please provide references.

(NFHS, it's clearly illegal; the "throw-in exception" applies only to the player to catch the ball. That's why I need the NCAA ruling only.)

[BktBallRef]

The rules, pasted below, seem pretty clear to me. Am I missing something?

Team control is established when A2 catches the ball.
A2 has FC status, giving the ball FC status.
A2 is the last to touch the ball before it goes into the BC.
A3 is the first to touch it after it goes in BC.

Aren't all the criteria met?

NCAA 9-11-1
A player shall not be the first to touch the ball in his or her back court when the ball came from the front court while the player’s team was in team control and the player or a teammate caused the ball to go into the back court.

NCAA 9-11-5
A player shall be permitted to be the first to secure control of the ball after a jump ball or throw-in while both feet are off the playing court and the player lands with one or both feet in the back court.

[Brad]

This is not legal -- just like NFHS.

Rule 9-11-5 addresses the throw-in exception, which covers a player catching the ball with both feet off of the ground and then landing with one or both feet in the backcourt.

However, there is no exception for passing the ball once it is received in the frontcourt.

A.R. 20 Addresses this, even thought it doesn't specify the case of a player catching the throw-in while not touching the floor, certainly that scenario qualifies as "receiving" the pass, so it's pretty clear that this is a violation.

A.R. 20. A1 receives a pass in Team A’s front court and throws the ball to his or her back court where the ball (a) is touched by a teammate...

RULING: Violation when touched in (a)...

[bob jenkins]

Brad and Tony --

Thanks -- that's what I thought, too.

RefMag has it as legal in the June 2002 issue (quiz #4 and Caseplays 1 and 2, iirc).

They also had it in a "Basketball Rules Differences" book I bought from them a few years ago.

I seem to remember that this *was* one of the differences in the rules many years ago (before I started to ref college). I'm wondering if it was "lost" when the NCAA re-wrote the rule book a few years ago. And, if it was, was it intentional (or does the NCAA still want that difference).

Mark T.D. -- any comments?

Thanks.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
Brad and Tony --

Thanks -- that's what I thought, too.

RefMag has it as legal in the June 2002 issue (quiz #4 and Caseplays 1 and 2, iirc).

They also had it in a "Basketball Rules Differences" book I bought from them a few years ago.

I seem to remember that this *was* one of the differences in the rules many years ago (before I started to ref college). I'm wondering if it was "lost" when the NCAA re-wrote the rule book a few years ago. And, if it was, was it intentional (or does the NCAA still want that difference).

Mark T.D. -- any comments?

Thanks.

Bob, I read this thread early this morning just before I went to chaperone a school field trip so I am just now looking at this play in depth.

My first reaction was the same as yours. This is the only difference between the NFHS and NCAA. And I had remembered as a Casebook Play in the NCAA Rules Book. The NCAA A.R. that Brad quotes is not the same play as the play in the original posting.

I am just online for a few minutes before going to umpire a softball game, so I do not have a chance to dig into my older NCAA Rules Books that have a Casebook as opposed to the ones with the A.R.'s. I am still of the opinion that under NCAA Rules the play is legal and under NFHS Rules it is a backcourt violation.

[BktBallRef]

Bob, my '99-00 BRD book states that this is not a violation under NCAA rules. It cites 9-11 Exception 1. However, the current NCAA rulebook doesn't show any exceptions, only the AR that Brad cited. If there was previously an Exception, it's no longer listed and it wasn't listed in '00-01.

Of course, the same people that write the BRD are the same people who write REFEREE articles and quizzes.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Bob, my '99-00 BRD book states that this is not a violation under NCAA rules. It cites 9-11 Exception 1. However, the current NCAA rulebook doesn't show any exceptions, only the AR that Brad cited. If there was previously an Exception, it's no longer listed and it wasn't listed in '00-01.

Of course, the same people that write the BRD are the same people who write REFEREE articles and quizzes.

Keeping in mind that A.R. 20 is not the same play as the original posting, and that the Casebook Play cited is the same play as in the original posting, the play is legal. The fact that it does not appear in the current rules book does not mean the caseball play is null and void. A casebook play is not null and void until it is replaced with a ruling the makes it null and void.

As I have stated before (backed up by Bob and Tony) the play is legal in NCAA and illegal in NFHS. IMHO, I think that the better interpretation because it is consistent with the definitions of player and ball location as well as the three exceptions listed in the NFHS and NCAA Rules.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
As I have stated before (backed up by Bob and Tony) the play is legal in NCAA and illegal in NFHS. IMHO, I think that the better interpretation because it is consistent with the definitions of player and ball location as well as the three exceptions listed in the NFHS and NCAA Rules.

However, the incosistency is that there are no exceptions listed in the NCAA rule book.

As for AR 20, it is the exact same play. It just doesn't say whether A1 is airborne or not, when he catches the ball. If A1 leaves the floor in the FC and catches the ball while airborne, he is in the FC and he has established team control. Therefore, an exception must exist that allows him to land in the BC or to toss the ball to a teammate in the BC for the play to be legal.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

However, the incosistency is that there are no exceptions listed in the NCAA rule book.

Well, there aren't any exceptions, but there are 9-11-4 and 9-11-5, which are exceptions masquerading as articles.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Well, there aren't any exceptions, but there are 9-11-4 and 9-11-5, which are exceptions masquerading as articles.

Well, I guess if I had actually read those 2 articles, I would realize that!

I was too busy looking for the exceptions to be listed like they are in the NF book. But they still don't seem to apply to your play.

Does anyone else have this NCAA casebook Mark is talking about?

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Does anyone else have this NCAA casebook Mark is talking about?

By my reading, the NCAA had a case book back in the '21-'22 season (1821, mind you), but when the NABBCEUIWSIDC and the SIFJWEUIHC combined, then split to found the NFHS, NCAA, FIBA, SCOTUS, and the UK, the NCAA dropped the case book.

[Dewey1]

I think the real issue here is when FC status is established? If A2 has it, it's a violation; if A2 doesn't have it, it's not a violation.
My understanding is that on a throw in the NCAA rules there is no centre line until the ball is a) controlled by a team and b) the player in control makes contact with the floor. In this situation A2 has control but has not returned to the floor so he has no front court or back court status. (Which is why AR20 doesn't apply - in that article FC status has been established). That means there is NO over and back violation. The closest I can come with a reference is 9-11-5 which says "a player shall be permitted to be the first to secure control of the ball after a throw-in while both feet are off the playing court and the player lands with one or both feet in the backcourt." So if
A2 can land back there he should be able to pass back there. This was the interpretation used at the Westcoast Officials Camp in Bellingham last year and is also the interpretation used in my association.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Dewey1
I think the real issue here is when FC status is established? If A2 has it, it's a violation; if A2 doesn't have it, it's not a violation.

It's not a question of whether FC status is established or not. FC status is established when a player in the FC catches the inbounds pass, no matter whether he is airborne or standing in the FC. "You are where you were until..." applies. 9-11-5 simply allows that player to land in the BC. We need something specific that states he can pass it to a teammate in the BC. No one has provided that yet.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

It's not a question of whether FC status is established or not. FC status is established when a player in the FC catches the inbounds pass, no matter whether he is airborne or standing in the FC. "You are where you were until..." applies. 9-11-5 simply allows that player to land in the BC. We need something specific that states he can pass it to a teammate in the BC. No one has provided that yet.

It's possible (I suppose) to read 4-42-2 as saying "an airborne player who catches the ball during a throw-in is in neither the front court nor the backcourt."

(To be clear, that's not how I'd read it absent the ruling. If I assume the ruling is correct, I might be able to "justify" it using 4-42-2.)