backcourt violation?
 

I was watching a playoff game last night and wondered about a call. I assume that they were right since the official making the call has probably done more tournament games than I've done "regular" games, but wanted to ask.

Sit: team A is inbounding the ball in their FC but close to the division line. A1 passes the ball in, A2 jumps, catches it (while in the air) and lands in the BC. A2 took off from the FC. The official called a BC violation.

My first thought was that it's not a BC violation because you can go into the BC for a throwin, but then thought that it might fall into the you are where you were until you get where you're going philosophy. Help me understand, please. :o

Fed:

You always are where you were until you get where you're going, if airborne.

However, this is not a violation because of an 'exception' to the backcourt rule. However, had A2 passed the ball to A3 who was in the BC, it would have been a violation.

Citation is 9-9-3 (Backcourt Violations):

A player from the team not in control (defensive player or during a jump ball or throw-in) may legally jump from his/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 backcourt.

In other words, he kicked the call. ;)

Official called the right call and here is teh reason

a2 is in the FC when he jumps to catch the ball thrown in by A1 (regardless of where the throw in FC|BC"

as soon as A2 catches the ball you have PC/TC and the ball has FC status

When A2 lands in the BC he is considered to have been in FC and went to BC hence back court violation since PC/TC were established in the FC.


Good call by ref:)

You would be right if the rule stopped there.
However comma there is an exception written into the rule for this play, allowing a player to catch the ball while jumping from FC to BC as long as he lands with the ball rather than catching in the air and passing to a teammat in the BC. It applies to throwins, jump balls, and defensive players.

The official kicked the call. This isn't one I see kicked that much, either, it's pretty basic. I'm surprised the coach wasn't going nuts.

All that is correct. Had this been a pass from inbounds it would be a violation. Had this been all the rule states, it would be a violation.

But, in the OP it was a throw-in pass, and the rule contains an "exception" for the first player to touch the throw-in pass (as well as exceptions fro defense and during a jump ball). Because of this exception, the play was (should have been) legal (assuming the play happened as described and that A2 was the first to touch the pass).

That would all be correct if A2 was in the back court and the inbound was in the FC. In this case A2 left the FC and gained ball in FC position. landed in BC so therefore changed FC2BC status. In other words PC was established the minute A2 grabbed the ball. NOT when he landed.

I agree. The four criteria are met:

1) Team Control
2) Ball in FC
3) A last to touch before ball goes to BC
4) A first to touch after ball goes to BC

But, ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS is also met. So, it's a legal play. And, there's no "inbound in the FC"

See 9-9: ART. 3 . . . A player from the team not in control (defensive player or during a
jump ball or throw-in) may legally jump from his/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 backcourt.

ILMalti, there is a specific throw-in exception to this rule. Once you get hold of a NFHS rulebook you will see it. But you can go on-line and retrieve the NCAA rules book and it will have the same exception.

Come on, he's really sure about this. :D

I'm taking it easy on him b/c in another thread he asked how to get ahold of a US High School rules book. But once he gets one the gloves are coming off. :D

Thank you Badnewsref
But I never asked for a rule book (you need to keep the facts straight).
I assume that this was a place for discussion not critism.
There are no gloves here but a earning for indepth understanding, The moderator approach is one I would suggest you look at.

If I offended you in anway by asking questions you have my appologies. Becasue someone sees things differntly is no reason to beliitle them

Kind regards

1) Where exactly did you ask questions? You didn't. You gave an incorrect rule interpretation. And when you were corrected, you didn't ask for a rule reference, you simply re-asserted the incorrect ruling. You were wrong and got called on it.

2) Where were you belittled? You were not. In fact, people said that they went out of their way not to give you a hard time because they thought you were fairly new and hadn't gotten a rulebook yet. Your treatment has been pretty standard.

When you can accept correction from knowledgeable colleagues, then you will improve. If you have a chip on your shoulder and think you can't be criticized for giving an obviously incorrect answer to a very basic question, then you won't learn much here.

So, do you have a rulebook then? Did you bother to look up the citation that was made a mere 7 minutes after the OP was made? You've got a lot a learn, young jedi. ;)

Your partner makes this (incorrect) call.
What do you do?