I blew one last night..
 

Throw in at the division line...A1 throws in to A2 in front court, doesn't catch it, just taps it back to A1 in the backcourt, I toot...Backcourt violation...No one in the whole gym knew I blew it, including my partner, My thinking is there was never any team control in the frontcourt off the throw-in, so therefore no backcourt violaton..am I correct ??

When A2 taps it, where's the location of the ball?

Unfortunately, yes, you're correct. It was a bad call. Betcha don't make that one again, though, will you? ;)

In NCAA, even though there is team control on a throw-in, this play would still not be a violation. See A.R. 212 (3).

Could you argue that A2 had enough 'control' to redirect the ball back to A1?

Just askin'

If it was a "controlled tap" (and I know that's not a defined term), then I'd also have a violation. If A2 fumbled tha ball, or it was a bad pass and A2 was just abtting it away from a defensive player, etc., then the play would be legal.

Inbounds. :)

Agreed

I'm thinking the same thing.
Was A2's re-direction of ball back to A1 "controlled"?

I probably would have called backcourt too if the tap was a "pass" and not a "fumble".

Thanks,
Paul

This really "smells" like a violation to me.

Concur

Controlled tap from F/C to the B/C

I would argue...
 

That our tapper does not have player control.
We cannot have team control until we have player control.
No violation.

I know it looks wrong, and may actually smell wrong, but there is no violation here.

There's no such thing as a controlled tap. Either the player establishes control -- holding or dribbling the live ball inbounds -- or he doesn't. Ask yourself this: would you have granted a time-out to the player if he'd asked for it during his "controlled tap". If the answer is no, then NO VIOLATION.

Sounds good Scrapper, any casebook play to validate your stance?

But you know the funny thing with this play is the inverse, for lack of a better term. If team A has the ball in the FC, basic play, and a pass is deflected by B into the BC, A can legally retrieve the ball. Make sure I'm right on that first.
By using the discussion above, B never had team control, yet we are allowing A to retain possession. Yet a tap on a throw-in doesn't have the same restrictions. Anyone else see the contradiction in this rule?
Just my mid-morning ramblings (lack of sleep and no coffee yet)

Agreed -- but if it was a pass, then A1 had to be holding the ball, however briefly.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Ch1town http://forum.officiating.com/images/...s/viewpost.gif
When A2 taps it, where's the location of the ball?

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

That's an inside joke! ;)

Wait, we aren't supposed to be making jokes on the forum anymore or having any fun whatsoever.

This is a good way to test for player control! I never heard or thought of it this way. Thanks, Scrapper :)

__________________________________

I'm not sure you blew it. I'd have to see it, but if the tap you mentioned qualified as a pass....then you have a violation. From what you've posted I'm leaning that way.

CB 9-9-3 supports violation. Throw-in ends when legally touched. A2 touched ball with FC status. A1 grabs it in BC.

Almost,..... don't forget, you still have to have team control mixed in there before a BC violation can occur.
.

Now we could go back to the ol' A1 offensive rebound "controlled tap" that ends up untouched in the BC until A2 touches. We'd have to apply the same?

I agree with others it's looks funny, smells bad, but legal.

IMO

So if an offensive player is fouled while tapping back a missed shot, you would not award free throw(s)?

That is not correct. NFHS 4-1-1 specifically says that a player who jumps and taps the ball toward the goal is an airborne shooter.

One of our most basic definitions is that a player is in control of the ball when s/he is holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds. Period. That's the only 2 ways to have player control. Batting or tapping the ball does NOT establish player control. Therefore, there is no such thing as a "controlled tap".

Isn't a "tap" a "try" as long as you are attempting to make a basket?

Scrapper beat me....

Actually 4-1-1 says "has tapped (past tense) the ball and has not returned to the floor." Either way, that play isn't quite the same. 4-12-1 says "holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds." So I guess it comes down to your definition of holding a ball. I'd call it a gray area. One could say that controlling the ball to tap it is "holding" it, even if just for a moment. The opposite could be argued as well.

And one would be wrong. The ball would have to "come to rest" in the hand even for a split second for it to be considered being "held".

Remember - there's a huge difference between "holding" a keg and "tapping" a keg. ;)

And you both beat me........

If you allow B to tap it into the backcourt then not allow A to touch it while it is in their backcourt, you're penalizing A big time.

B taps it into the backcourt and then they are legally the only ones allowed to touch it. Major advantage. That's what the rules are for, to take away advantages like that and make the game FAIR.

I agree. Controlled tap be damned !

Rebounder taps a missed shot to backcourt and teammate retrieves the ball. ...Start the 10 second count.

In homage to Tony: there are four required elements to a backcourt violation. If any one of the four is missing, it is NOT a violation.

• There must be team control.
• The ball must have front court status.
• The ball must have been last touched by the team in control before going to backcourt.
• The ball must be first touched by the team in control after having gone to backcourt.

In the OP, there is no team control. Tapping is not controlling. Holding or dribbling is controlling. If you judge that he actually caught the ball then threw it, by all means count that as team control. In my game, there is going to have to be a clear catch, obvious control, and then a separate throwing motion. "Prolonged contact" doesn't do it for me in basketball. ;)

I had a similar thing happen to me tonight. Throw-in in the frontcourt. A1 throws it towards A2, it's a high pass. Deflects off of A2's hand and goes about two feet into the backcourt. A2 goes and retrieves it and dribbles into the frontcourt. I almost hit the whistle before I realized that it wasn't a violation.

As for the OP, that isn't a violation if it happened the way it's described.

So this isn't tapping. It's a pass back to the teammate who inbounded the ball. How can a player pass the ball without having control of it?

I agree with Bob Jenkins's ruling: if it's a pass, this is a violation; if it's a fumble, play on.

Because the rules don't require control to pass the ball. The ball may be passed by batting it. Says so right there in 4-31.

Do you believe that batting the ball constitutes player control?

Depends how long the hand is on the ball. If it's definitely a swing the arm, ball bounces off the hand bat, I'm with you. If the ball comes to rest in the hand for even a fraction of a second, I'll call this a violation every time.

I'm pretty sure Bob would point out that you cannot have a fumble without having first had player control, thus team control, thus a violation. ;)

OTOH, batting the ball does not involve player control, thus no team control, thus no violation.

That's true. Where's JR when we need him? ;)

As I implied in an earlier post, if the ball comes to rest in the hand at all, it's a hold, not a bat. This still is consistent with the definition of player control requiring a player to be either holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds. Remember, it is possible for a player to "bat" the ball in a specific direction without having it come to rest in his hand. This is not a hold and does not constitute player control.

Heluva Good Official ...
 

He says that he lives in Hell. Anybody got any contacts there? Also, I heard a rumor that he was sighted on the Baseball Forum recently.

No, but I'm going there for an extended stay.

You're headed down this way Mick? You can do my season opener 12-2!!

Best offer I've had in a month !:)