Throw-In BC Violation
 

I am trying to understand the situation where A1 is the thrower during a spot throw-in near the division line. B1 touches the ball and A2 jumps from FC, catches the ball, and lands in BC. BC violation. But if B1 does not touch it, A2 is fine.

When B1 touches the ball throw-in ends so A2's location is FC where he took off last. However if B1 does not touch, throw-in ends when A2 catches it (in the air) and location is not established until A2 lands?

You seem to understand it. I'm not a fan of it, but I understand it.

It may be cold in Ak but you have the rule correct. It is a coach ballistic rule. I have never seen it happen, good thing!

Thank you for confirming for me. It is a balmy -8 here on the NW coast but a chilly -44 in Fairbanks.

Another twist. If a1, while in the air from the front court, catches and then passes to a2 in the backcourt this also is a violation. So much to think about!:)

"Location" is established in either case. The second, though, isn't a violation because of a specific exception in the rules.

But wouldn't team control have to be established first in the front court for it to be a violation.

This accomplished once A2 catches the ball since A2 had FC status.

I understand that, but team control isn't established when the ball is tipped by B2, so when A2 catches the ball in the air thats when team control is established so landing in the BC should be fine since team A never had team control in the FC because he caught it in the air before team control was estab.

When A2 catches the ball, PC and TC are established. A2 is in the FC. Thus, there's TC in the FC.

Ok, I know the rule is correct, but I guess its not making sense.
Since A2 is in the air when TC and PC is established and TC was never established before that even with the tip by B1 I dont see how this could be BC.

Location, location, location
 

A's last established location was FC before jumping. Therfore when the ball is caught the FC staus is achieved. Now refer to Bob's post.

There is an exception to the backcourt violation, 9-9-3, that states a player can jump from the frontcourt, catch the throw-in in the air, and land in the backcourt without commiting the violation. Otherwise, as Bob mentioned, A2's status is the FC (because that was their last position), and there would be team control (on the catch). Last season, the Fed. came out with an interp that stated once a player tips the throw-in, the throw-in has ended. Therefore, the throw-in exception I mentioned (9-9-3) does not apply, and A2 has committed a violation.

This is where the confusion lies for many officials. Exactly the same play, except for the (seemingly) minor addition of the tip by the defender.

As bob said.

There's no requirement to establish TC "before" you establish FC status; nor is there a requirement for the opposite order.

Once A2 catches this ball in the air, TC has been established in the FC. A long time ago, it used to be listed as an exception to the rule, but now it's an exception within the rule (more of a structural difference). The exception only applies to defensive players, jump balls, and throwins. Honestly, I can understand defensive players and jump balls (the team doesn't really have control of the ball), but can't understand the throwin.

A few years ago, there was a big discussion here about whether the exception applied to all situations in which there was no team control (in which case both situations in the OP would be legal) or only to the very specific examples given in the rule (during throwin, jump ball, and for defensive player). NFHS helped us out with the case play.

-8?? That's a whole half-a-degree warmer than my hometown of Soldotna is right now!!

The acception rule only applies to the first one to touch, offence or defence. Once the ball is touched the provision no longer applies.

Any case play on this?

thanks

This exception to the exception (ball tipped by B2 negates the normal exception permitted A2) is one of these situations that I understand completely, but with which I disagree completely as well.

Such over and back violations cause angst every time we call them. This is right up there with the last-touch-first-touch over and back violation.

I'm okay with the last-touch-first-touch thing. I do think, however, that they should expand the exception to all situations where there is no team control. The rule would be shorter, too. "A player whose team is not in control...."

I understand it, and maybe I'm one of the few people that doesn't disagree with it. Look at it this way, it's not an "exception to the exception", but rather look at it exactly as it is written - it is an exception allowed <B>during</B> a throw-in. When does a throw-in end? 4-42-5 tells us that - when it touches or is touched by another player either in-bounds or out of bounds. So, when the throw-in is touched by B1, the throw-in is over, thus there's no exception to worry about.

Most of the angst comes from not knowing or completely understanding the rule. The more we can pass along proper information, the less angst for all of us.

(I believe I have now hit a persoanl best for the most number of times using the word "angst" in a single post.)

Think of it this way...

You are where you last were till your not there anymore.

Player started in FC, jumped in the air with momentum towards BC. While in the air the last place the player was on the ground was in the FC so he/she does not get BC status till they land and touch the division line or futher back.

That is exactly how the rule reads. Are you trying to confuse me? lol

My way would remove the parethetical specifics that follow. :)

http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:...s/windmill.jpg

:)

Nah, I'm saving that for the AP arrow changes I want. :D

None needed.

The exception part of the rule (I think it's article 3) says (paraphrasing) "A PLAYER ...may catch the ball and land in the BC". There's nothing about passing the ball, or the restrictions not applying until someone touching the court controls the ball, ...