Is this correct?
 

Working a youth tournament over the weekend- inbounds pass at half court. Player catches in frontcourt steps to backcourt. Call over and back. My partner at halftimes says to me- did you realize you can't have over and back on an inbounds. He is a solid veteran who said till the week before never realized this as well. He said he looked it up and found this info. I have not had a chance to look up but if someone tells me this is correct please refernce for me. Thanks

9.9.1

Sounds like traveling to me, if he meant stepped with both feet. ;)

Actually, it isn't clear if he means the player was airborne when he caught the ball and landed in backcourt (no violation on a throw-in) or if he caught the ball while standing in frontcourt then stepped into the backcourt while dribbling (violation) or if he caught the ball while standing in frontcourt then just picked up his non-pivot foot and touched it into the backcourt (newbies, what's the call here?).

Inbounds pass at half court----no team control yet, cannot have BC violation
Player catches in frontcourt---team control is established, player location is established, throw-in (inbounds) is ended. All special inbounding/BC rules are gone.
steps to backcourt---BC violation
Call over and back---correct call

give us a little beter description of this because it could be a back court violation.
while the player would be allowed to land one foot in each court if airborne for the purposes of saftey ot in one motion they are okay, 9.9-3.
If the player lands in the front court in control and then steps into the backcourt it is clearly a violation.

Ncaa 4.3-8
 

Art. 8. After a jump ball or during a throw-in, the player in his/her front court, who makes the initial touch on the ball while both feet are off the playing court, may be the first to secure control of the ball and land with one or both feet in the back court. It makes no difference if the first foot down was in the front or back court.

this is a little better wording as far as the landing part of the back court issue

Your "solid veteran" partner is wrong. :( Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:

Here is the play ruling that mick noted:

FRONTCOURT– BACKCOURT

9.9.1 SITUATION A:

Another Myth Bites The Dust ...
 

During a throwin, or jump ball, any player; or a defensive player, in making a steal; may legally jump from his or her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor, and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or the backcourt. These three situations are not backcourt violations.

Is it a Myth or just a mythtake?
 

Billy, I don't think the OP represents a myth. To me, in order to be a myth, it has to be a widely held misconception. In the OP, the official needs to look up when a throwin ends. He's right that you can't have a backcourt violation during a throwin; he's just wrong about when the throwin ends.

Let's add this...

Offensive player is being pressure by D in FC moving toward BC...throw in come from sideline and is tapped by offensive player and ball goes to BC where he runs and gaines control.

BC violation or no?

No. While the throwin was over, team control was never established in the FC. In order to call a legitimate BC violation, the ball must have FC status while team control is in effect. FWIW, without team control FC/BC status are meaningless; they are dependent upon team control.

Is this correct?
 

I understand there is no backcourt violation during/after the throw-in, but want to make sure I'm right on when team control, player control, and front-court/backcourt status is established.

During a throwin, A2 jumps from his frontcourt, catches the ball in mid-air, and lands in his backcourt.

- When A2 secures the ball in mid-air:
* The throw in ends (actually ends as soon as A2 touches the ball, it
doesn't have to be secured.)
* Team A has team control
* A2 has player control
* A2 has front-court status while in the air, and has back-court status
when he lands in the back-court.

- No backcourt violation because A1 caught the ball while both feet were in the air, and Team A was not in control immediately before he caught the pass.

Is this all correct?

The OP is unclear
 

did the player catch the ball with one foot on the floor then step in the back court, Clearly violation.
if the player was airborne caught the ball then the player has the right to land and can not be called for a back court violation if one foot lands in either court in any order.

But the throw in ends when the ball is legally touched on the court which would be when the ball is touched and the players foot is on the floor.

The exception here is that the airborne player is allowed to land getting both feet down safely.

I do agree with Snaqs it is the fact that once the ball is legally touched on the floor the throw in is over then the violation occurs.

Yes, that is all correct. The only reason that what you describe is not a violation is because there is a specific rule which allows for an exception to the normal backcourt provisions.
The concepts of player control, team control, when the throw-in ends, and fc/bc status remain consistent throughout the game.

What exactly do you mean by that?

I meant it literally.

FC and BC are only significant once team control has been established.

Unless you can show me a rule which refers to FC or BC when there is no team control. You have been known to prove me wrong before on rules; got something?

I just wished to check that you weren't saying that FC and BC status didn't exist without team control. The FC/BC status of a player or the ball may be not matter most of the time without team control, but does exist and can certainly be determined.

Ok, now you really made me think about this one, and the best that I can do is come up with some plays in which either the location of the players or the ball matters to the subsequent administration of the game, but during which there was no team control. However, whether that location is FC or BC isn't really important. All that is important is that the rules instruct us to go to a point nearest that location. So I guess that I have to agree with your contention that FC/BC distinction isn't important on plays where team control doesn't exist, as long as we acknowledge that there is independent relevance to the location of the players and the ball and that location can impact the administration of the game.

Consider these plays:
1. A1 has the ball for a throw-in along the endline following a goal by Team B. He tries to throw the ball the length of the floor to A2, but B3 standing in the FT lane (a) nearest Team B's basket, (b) near the division line, or (c) nearest Team A's basket kicks the ball. Where's the new throw-in location?

2. With only six seconds remaining in the game and the score tied, Team A has an endline throw-in. A1's throw-in pass is immediately deflected by B1 who is standing near the endline in the backcourt of Team A. The ball continues to midcourt where A3 and B3 commit a double personal foul while going for the ball, but before either player is able to touch it. The official sounds the whistle for the double foul with two seconds left. How is the game resumed?

3. B1 attempts a long throw-in pass from a designated spot near the FT line extended in his backcourt. The pass is deflected near the point of origin by A2 who is standing inbounds near the thrower, but the ball continues in flight and strikes the backboard of Team B. The official inadvertently sounds the whistle. The AP arrow favors Team B. When play resumes who get the ball and from where is the ensuing throw-in?

I'll take a shot at these
 

Since the kick is not a legal touch the team A throw in never ended so the ball should be inbounded on the base line in all cases with the right to run the endline since the throw in is after a made goal.

The Team A throw in ended with the legal touch by B1, you would resume with the appropriate restart for a double foul in in both NFHS and NCAA.
the difference being that there is team control during a throw-in in the NCAA so there would be POI to restart play. So the ball would be inbounded near mid-court spot throwin nearest the double foul for team A
I believe it is POI for NFHS too, but on a double foul since there is no team control here you go to the AP. the inbound would be spot nearest foul call.



The Team B throw in ends when the ball is legally touched by A2 the ball striking the backboard should be irrelivant since the backboard in the back court is the same as the floor (for team B).
NCAA there is is team control during a throw in so Team B gets the ball POI on the end line spot throw in nearest where the ball hit the backboard.
NFHS there is no team control during a throw in so since the throw in ended there is still no team conrol when the inadvertant whistle was blown go to AP inbound end line spot throw in nearest where ball hit backboard.

I'm pretty sure you go back to the POI in NFHS also, which is a throw-in for Team A at the original spot. We had a thread about this a few weeks ago, although in that situation the ball wasn't deflected by Team B before the double foul occurred.

If the ball is touched legally do you go to the arrow and if it isn't touched yet do you go back to the POI? I'm confused on this one.

You always go to the POI. But, ...

If the throw in has ended (the case where B1 deflects the ball), then neither team is in control, and there's not a throw-in or FT involved, so the POI will be the arrow.

If the throw-in hasn't ended (the case where B1 does not deflect the ball), then neither team is in control, but there is a throw-in or FT involved, so the POI will be the throw-in.

I'm pretty sure that on a double foul you go o the POI and give the ball back to the team in control.

but the issue here is that durring a throw in in NFHS there is no team control
So I think you have to go AP in that case

You ALWAYS use POI after a double foul. It's just that sometimes POI is an A/P throw-in, and other times it's not.

See Bob's answer immediately above.

Of a player, maybe. I would say the FC/BC status of the ball may not be determined without team control.

Of your three plays, this is the only one where FC/BC have an arguable relevance; in determining whether the throwin is a spot throwin or an endline throwin. Since this is generally determined without reference to FC/BC, but instead by referencing whose basket is which, I say it's "arguable."

Good stuff, I think.

Now I'm less positive about NCAA, but for NFHS, you have the spot wrong on this. I think you're wrong on NCAA as well.

Okay that's what I thought. Thanks.

explain - since the throw in is over would not the ball be spotted nearest the actual interuption (foul) or or are you saying it is where the ball is when the double foul occured?

I amde the assumption it was with or near the two players who fouled sorry.

No, it's always point of interruption. Not the spot of the interruption. On a double foul, the location of the foul is never relevant.

Therefore, the spot will be the location of the ball; currently defined as where it was last touched.

In this play, you'd take it back to where the defender deflected it off the inbounds pass.

I am missing your point here please explain because this is directly addressed in 7.5-7

ART. 7 . . . After a goal or awarded goal as in 7-4-3, the team not credited with the score shall make the throw-in from the end of the court where the goal was made and from any point outside the end line. A team retains this privilege if the scoring team commits a violation or common foul (before the throw-in ends and before the bonus is in effect) and the ensuing throw-in spot would have been on the end line. Any player of the team may make a direct throw-in or he/she may pass the ball along the end line to a teammate(s) outside the boundaryline.

again old book but no significant change has occurred that I am aware of.

My point is simply that 7-5-7 does not refer to BC or FC, only the basket where the goal was made.

I think it backs up the assertion that FC/BC do not exist, per the rules, without team control.

got it thanks

Okay that is simple - I do not think that that would be an assertion though -
that would be fact - since without team control it is only a location on the floor - there is no FC/BC status.

Exactly.

I should have been clearer on the following play.

It's an assertion when someone utters or writes it sincerely (non-ironically); the fact is what makes the assertion true. ;)

I still don't see how BC/FC have any bearing on this play.

Or You Stayed At A Holiday Inn Express Last Night ...
 

English teacher, writer, or philosopher? Give us a hint. Maybe I don't need a hint, I've already got two clues, a username that includes "Byron", and a signature that contains the British informal goodbye, "Cheers". You're a poet.

Play #2 demonstrates that the ball has a status (FC/BC; inbounds/OOB) that is independent of the players or the concepts of team and player control.

You may look at it as just having a location since neither team is in control or you could say that it is in the FC of one team and the BC of the other whenever it has inbounds status. Your choice. ;)

I think it has location with regard to the most recently scored goal. I disagree that it has FC or BC status.
I've made my decision. :)

So when A1's throw-in pass hits B2 in head you are willing to acknowledge that the ball has inbounds status, but not FC or BC status? ;)

Yep.

I disagree. The (inbounds ball) has FC or BC status -- but it doesn't matter unless there's also Team Control (and the other two requirements for a BC violation to happen).

Which is it, then? Whose FC or BC? I don't think you can determine that until you know which team has control.

I lost ya. We don't need to know who has team control to determine who's backboard/goal is theirs, why should FC/BC be any different?

Because Team A's BC is Team B's FC. If the ball is bouncing underneath A's goal, you need to know which team has control to determine whether the ball is in the FC or the BC.

Gotcha....now I can process on....:D

It's in A's FC and B's BC, or in A's BC and B's FC, or in both A's and B's BC. The same as it is when A (or B) has TC.

"Always listen to Bob." :D