Over and back?
 

A1 is dribbling the ball in the frontcourt very close to the division line. A1 picks up her dribble and B1 closes in. As A1 is trying to pass the ball B1 taps the ball free from A1 in the air and the ball is out of her posession for a half second. As A1 pivots to catch the ball, her left foot in the frontcourt, she has her right foot in the air. She regains control of the ball and then her right foot lands in the backcourt. Is this a violation?

Yes

Yes.

A1 caused the ball to be in team control in the FC. A1 caused the ball to go into the BC and was first to touch the ball giving it BC status.

I thought so!
 

I had this play last night and I called a violation. Just wanted to make sure I had it correct as I am a new official.

But if A1 puts her right foot down in the backcourt prior to catching the ball, I'm not penalizing her no matter what that silly Interp #10 says. :D

I'm thinking you're just kidding... but by rule it's still a violation, correct?

If B1 tips the ball, A1 steps first in the BC, then catches the ball, that should not be a violation. A was not the last to touch the ball in FC.

Uh oh. Here we go...

And this is why the "silly interp" comment was made. According to the interpretation, this is, indeed, a violation.

If B1 tips the ball, A1 steps first OOB, then catches the ball...
who caused it go OOB?

Not the same at all. Read the four requirements for a backcourt violation. Team A must be last to touch the ball in the front court, no exceptions. "Causation" is not part of this rule.

Cause is a valid concept in OOB. Cause is not a valid concept in the backcourt violation. Last to touch, first to touch. No cause involved.

Mark I understand that fact, but with the twist Nevada put on the OP. Didn't A1s recovery become a last to touch in the fc while simultaneously gaining control in the bc situation?

I always thought if B (in the fc) tipped the ball towards the bc, A had to let the ball gain bc status (by actually striking the wood) then regain possession :confused:

Not trying to be confrontational, just want to get it right. And not right by personal philosophies, but how the Feds want it called.
Any casebook plays on this particular situation would be greatly appreciated?

You understand correctly according to the stupid interpretation. Most disagree with this ruling, because A1 never touches a ball with frontcourt status - the instant he/she touches the ball, it has backcourt status.

Agreed.

A1 was not the last to touch it BEFORE it goes into the backcourt....B was.

The interp (I believe) rather than a case play says it's a violation. The argument, however, is that it impossible to simultaneously be the last to touch "before" it goes into the back court and the first to touch it in the back court. "Before" is key here.

My head hurts.

Fast break A1 dribbling with ball in the FC passes to A2 who is also already in the FC.

B1 trys to steal the ball, but only manages to bat the ball towards her own basket.

A3 is still coming up the floor, but is still in the BC. She catches the ball that was still in flight from the bat.

Interp #10 says this is a BC 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.

So it's (the interp) trying to say that the exact moment A3 catches the ball in the BC, she is doing the last 2 bullet thingys at once? (Last to touch the ball in the FC...since the ball never has yet been in the BC, AND she is now the first to touch in the BC)

Hey, I already said that in a post yesterday! (Did I do it right, Nevada? ;) )

Yep, you've got it. That's why most of us do not like that interp. Also, to add a slight change to your play, if the ball bounced once in the BC before A3 caught it, it would not be a violation.

Well, I guess we could say then, it was a "controlled bat" meaning B1 had possession ending team A's control?

;):D

Who is this "we" you talkin' about? :D

Those 10 kinds of people..... the ones that understand the backcourt violation and those that don't.

Almost. Your statement modified....

So it's (the interp) trying to say that the exact moment A3 catches the ball in the BC, she is doing the last 2 bullet thingys at once? (Last to touch the ball before it returned to the BC...since the ball never has yet been in the BC, AND she is now the first to touch after it returned to the BC)

It does't matter WHERE the player touches the ball, just the timing relative to when it gains BC status. The ball doesn't even need to stay in the backcourt for the rule to apply (it could, without it being touched by a player, bounce off an official or have a funny spin and return to the FC). The rule requires touches in a specific order with reference to when the ball gains BC status. The interpretation doesn't fit that order.

There you go again, Coach. Making jokes on a serious issue. I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya!

Nope. By rule the play is legal. By recent NFHS interpretation the play is a backcourt violation, and I have just decreed that interpretation to be null and void. ;)

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...al-decree.html

Speaking of over and back - Rookie official working my 2nd scrimmage. A has the ball in the front court and is being pressured by B. B slaps the ball off of the leg of A and the ball rolls into the backcourt. B for some reason doesn't go after the ball letting A have it easily. I know that if A touches it I've got a whistle. While I'm thinking this I'm also thinking that as soon as I blow the whistle I'll have the fans and the coach riding me for the call. Sure enough A touches the ball, I blow the whistle, and I got the expected reaction. "It was TIPPED!!" "How can you miss that when its right in front of you?"

My wife didn't understand why I didn't turn around and explain the rule to the fans to prove that I was right. Obviously she will not be a ref.

Good call.

Assuming coach A asks.... "tipped twice. First by them, then by you."