Violation or not - let's make a list

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Hey, I'm pretty sure that's going to offend a certain group of people.

Like Sarah Palin?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

Like Sarah Palin?

I was thinking more along the lines of David Letterman.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I was thinking more along the lines of David Letterman.

Aye

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Quote:

Now, consider a former version of the rule to see if this is really the desired interpretation or not...

From 2003-04 (and others)

SECTION 9 BACKCOURT

A player shall not be the first to touch a ball which is in team control after it has been in the frontcourt, if he or she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

EXCEPTION 1: It is not a violation when after a jump ball or a throw-in, a player is the first to secure control of the ball while both feet are off the floor and he or she then returns to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt.

EXCEPTION 2: It is not a violation if a defensive player who jumped from frontcourt, secures control of the ball while both feet are off the floor and he or she returns to the floor with one or both feet in backcourt.

Note that the throwin exception doesn't make a distinction between jumping from the frontcourt or backcourt....the player may land with one or both foot in the backcourt. It also makes no mention of which one comes down first. The fact that the other exception that mentions the location of the jumper (frontcourt) is only relevant since it implies team control is established in the frontcourt the moment the player catches the ball but an exception is granted allowing that player, who has just made a good defensive play to steal the ball, to land in his/her backcourt. If the same player had jumped from their backcourt, there would be no issue of establishing team control in the frontcourt merely by catching the ball having jumped from the frontcourt.
The editorial change to move the exceptions into the main articles never intended to change the rule (otherwise they wouldn't have been called an editorial clarification), only to reword it into the mainline and not as exceptions. However, as worded, it actually may appear to have changed the rule unintentionally.

I believe the apparent limitation relative to allowing a player to jump only from the frontcourt is really an oversight in the re-wording...a wording that is written to match the common cases rather than an intended limitation that turns, into a violation, a play that is essentally the same but less common and is, physically, far more difficult to end up in .

The general principle behind the exceptions/rule remains: that the first player touching the ball and player securing control of the ball which was not in his/her team control is allowed to make a normal landing in the backcourt no matter where the first foot comes down.

So, once you look at this logically and understanding what is behind the rule and where it came from...the point of establishing team control, situation D above should not a violation no matter where the player jumps from nor which foot comes down first.