Here's a puzzler
 

In another thread, tjchamp brought up a point about the backcourt violation rule. As we all know (at least most of us, anyhow), there are four criteria needed for a backcourt violation.

1) there must be team control
2) the ball must have achieved frontcourt status
3) the team in team control must be the last team to touch the ball in the frontcourt and...
4) that same team must be first to touch the ball after it has been in the backcourt

His situation was (I'm extrapolating) what if A1 had the ball in the front court, his pass to A2 is tipped by B1 who is standing in A's frontcourt, the ball then travels in the air toward A's backcourt where it is next touched by A3 who is standing in A's backcourt. His point was that when A3 touched the ball it established backcourt status for the ball but it still had frontcourt status when he touched it, therefore team A (because of A3's action) was last to touch in the frontcourt and also first to touch in the backcourt and, of course, the tip by B1 didn't end team A's team control because a tip doesn't establish player control which is what would be needed to change team control in this instance.

Can A3's touch accomplish both points at the same time? What do you think?

I may be in need of meds b/c I was actually thinking about this play this weekend.

I can actually understand the logic in the argument that this should be considered a b/c violation because it is A3's action which causes the ball to have b/c status, not B1's action. If A3 had reached across the division line plane from the frontcourt and caught the ball in the air with his hands in the b/c we wouldn't start a 10-second count because the ball never changed to b/c status.

I think that's what the NFHS interp tells us, so I think that is what happens.

I also think their thinking is a bit off. I think the NFHS should explain their way of thinking so the rest of us don't have to think as much about how to explain it to a coach who thinks we're nuts for making that call.

I guess a similar line of thinking would involve a throw-in; if the player catches the throw-in while standing with one foot OOB, the throw-in ends when it touched that player, and that same player caused the ball to be OOB. (Although the rule does specifically mention the throw-in ends when touching a player that is either in bounds or OOB.) So, I guess in that case two things can happen at once, so it's kind of the same, only different.

Padgett! Just because you're out of meds doesn't mean you need to make the rest of us suffer with headaches trying to sort this thing out! :p

Poor A3, if he had just let the ball bounce once in the backcourt before touching it, this thread would not have been started.

no

I'm with Indianaref. Be patient and let it bounce before you grab it. As clear cut as this b/c violation is why do we have so many questions about it.:rolleyes:

Haven't We Been Through This Before ???
 

2007-08 Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 10: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1; 4-4-3; 9-9-1)

Thank you BillyMac. It's really not that hard although I bet the percentage of officials who call it properly is not very high.
I've actually had this 3 or 4 times.

But for those of you who just joined us........
 

Here's the problem: Causing the ball to have backcourt status is not a violation. The rule, as written, specifies "last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt." In the situation described in the interpretation, this simply did not happen.

Yeah, a lot of us dislike that interp.

The Ransom Of Red Chief mbyron ...
 

"Yeah" instead of "Yes"? "Interp" instead of "Interpretation"? Only eight words in the post, six of which have only one syllable, none of which are more than two syllables? No obscure references that send me to Wikipedia? What have you done with the real mbyron, and how much ransom do you want to keep him?

Think of it this way, if A3 were standing out of bounds when he touched it, would you call it out of bounds on B1? I think the interp just clarifies that the midcourt line acts like an OOB line.

That would be rugby, which is a quite different game. :)

Say what???